triptrapper

He's not giving up on politics, just the DNC. Which could turn out to be exactly the right move.

This is my first season watching more than a few games, and watching teams other than my own. I don't know why, but I like the Pacers a lot.

Now do pharmacies!

To be clear, I voted for Harris, and I implored everyone I know to vote for Harris, for exactly the reasons you mentioned. I will always vote for the farthest-left candidate in the general, full-stop. I'm not arguing that both sides are the same, or that Harris wouldn't have been a better choice for 100 reasons outside of the genocide issue. I'm arguing that Harris gave no indication that she would defend Palestine or even recognize the genocide at all. She might well have done those things, but she didn't campaign on that, so I don't know why anyone is defending her on the issue. Establishment Dems can't seem to get it through their heads that progressive policies are popular, so we keep getting general elections between an absolute monster and a neolib Dem saying, "Vote for me or you'll get the monster!" That might be the reality, but it's not a platform.

I live in a blue state, and I had people around me arguing that whether they voted third-party or didn't vote at all, they would be able to sleep at night knowing that A. they didn't vote for genocide and B. the state would go blue anyway. I don't agree with that position at all. I want third parties to be represented in the US, but that starts at the local level and in the primaries. By the general election it's too late and we realistically have two options. I also believe that shutting down any criticism of the Dem candidate (e.g. a now-banned user told me to kill myself) is a good way to alienate people and discourage them from engaging with the process at all. The right has banned nuance from their discourse, and I refuse to allow the same thing to happen around me.

You sound like an expert in doing nothing.

Oh I don't at all support what Meta has done, and I don't trust any company not to harm and exploit users. I was responding to your comment by saying that talking to a chatbot doesn't necessarily indicate that someone has "bigger problems." If they're not in a crisis, and they have reasonable expectations for the chatbot, I can see how it could be a helpful tool. If someone doesn't have access to a real therapist, and a chatbot helps them feel better in the meantime, I'm not going to gatekeep that experience.

I'm a real-life human therapist (honest!) and while I don't think it's a substitute for talking to a real person, I'm happy that some people get some benefit from chatbots. I had a client who used Rosebud Journal in between sessions and found it helpful. I tried out Rosebud myself and I was very impressed with how it replicated the basics like reflective listening and validation. It was even able to reframe my input using various therapy models when I requested it. I didn't use it for long because I'm not big on journaling, but I wouldn't dismiss it completely as a tool.

If I remember correctly, PT Anderson used a 100+ year old lens for a couple shots in There Will Be Blood. There's a shot of the burning derrick with some significant vignetting. And Deakins did something similar on Assassination of Jesse James.

There's been a trend for a while where they'll shoot digital and make it look like film. Deakins said he'll probably never shoot film again. Steve Yedlin, Rian Johnson's DP, made a [video essay?] to demonstrate how film and digital can look indistinguishable from each other.

https://youtu.be/suZtYPIADHM

Nation Could Have Sworn Russell Brand Was Already Convicted Sex Offender -The Onion

I appreciate you recognizing the blunder, and you couldn't have picked a more obscure reference.

What?