loobkoob

It's not just a thing in fiction either; I've seen plenty of threads and discussions over the years where real-life sex workers have essentially been saying the same thing. A lot of men are lonely.

The big thing that was missing for me was culture. And it made me appreciate Cyberpunk 2077 that much more. There are people everywhere in Starfield, but the only real differences between them are that they're generic American with cowboy hat versus generic American with business-casual clothes versus generic American with streetpunk clothes stood under neon lights. There's no difference in how people talk. Even the people who'd never interacted with anyone outside of their own community before - who thought they were the last remaining humans - felt the same. There are people everywhere but no real personality.

Versus Cyberpunk 2077, where CDPR created so much culture. There are hours and hours' worth of original songs for the game. There are adverts everywhere that really capture the feeling of the world. People from different parts of the city and different groups have their own dialects. There's so much slang invented for the game. Even the architecture and design of the city tells stories. Sure, the average NPC has no real personality or routine on an individual level, but the world and culture are so well fleshed out. Starfield has none of that.

I also did seem to get hit with quite a few game-breaking bugs in Starfield. I couldn't progress the temple questline - they gave no no powers and the quest didn't advance properly. I had some terrible bugs regarding ship ownership that resulted in me having to load a save from 20 hours previous. It was just a disaster for me, and really killed any enjoyment I may have been getting from the game.

Green Wing will be right up your alley if you're a fan of all these shows! It's a sitcom/drama set in a hospital but it's not a medical drama. It's entirely character driven, very absurd in its humour, and almost like a sketch show at times with how some of its scenes play out. It's tied with Black Books for my favourite comedy series (and Tamsin Greig stars in both, too).

People can be angry or upset about more than one thing at a time. And you've no idea whether the person you responded to has been outraged about the US' strikes or not. Just because a society as a whole has a viewpoint that trends a certain way doesn't mean you can assume each and every individual you talk to has that exact viewpoint.

By all means, criticise society as a whole - it's a very valid thing to be critical of. But making assumptions about individuals - and being rude to / critical of them based on those assumptions - isn't the way to win anyone over.

I like the idea of this, although there'd need to be a robust verification system in place to make sure people aren't being bullied into passing their votes off to others.

I think it'd generally lead to people being more engaged and politically literate, though. And it could even lead to individuals bargaining with people they know. Like, I could say to my neighbour, "hey, I'll vote your way on this policy that I'm indifferent about if you vote my way on this other policy".

I do wonder how much of an issue disinformation campaigns would be under such a system. Would it increase their influence? Would hate rags like the Daily Mail find themselves with more influence? Or would people start to cotton onto the fact that nothing they suggest improves anything?

Well I'm just glad Harry Mack managed to release his 100th episode of "Omegle Bars" this week. He decided to take a break from doing Omegle-based content at the right time, it seems.

For anyone who doesn't know, Harry Mack's a freestyle rapper. He has (had) a series where he'd ask strangers on Omegle to give him a handful of words and then create a full song out of them on the fly. And not just saying those words then immediately moving on like most freestyle rappers do; he actually creates entire verses on the topics he's given and really raps around them. Plus he'd be calling out things the people were doing as they react to him, responding to things they say, mentioning things he can see in the room, etc, as he raps.

Here's one of his freestyles that's really stuck with me ever since I first saw it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehcA4zCeaPI

He takes what are some fairly negative, "cry for help" words from the girls and turns them into a really beautiful, positive rap overall. He's a very positive guy in general, and I've watched him consistently since I discovered him. Binging his videos got me through a breakup, in fact.

My own experiences with Omegle have either been penises or just bland, and it's not something I've used for many years as a result. But videos like Harry Mack's show what wonderful things could come from it and I do think it's a huge shame it's gone. It feels like another part of the old internet's gone, and that we're moving even closer to the sanitised, heavily-monetised internet run by megacorporations. I hate that.

I'm attached the end of your rod, motherlicka

Even if Starmer and the Labour party were pretty much the same except they kept the mask on, that would still be a step in the right direction. Normalising the racism, bigotry, corruption and general inhumaneness that fuels the Tory party is absolutely something we should try to avoid.

However, I don't think Labour is like this. I don't think they're perfect, but I think they're much, much better. They're not going to fix everything overnight, but I do think them getting into power would be an important first stepping stone in moving the country and politics towards being a better place in in 10-15 years. They may not be your ideal party but, if you're pragmatic and have any kind of long-term vision, you'll likely vote for them (or the Liib Dems, depending on which constituency you're in) to make sure the Tories are eliminated.

The Overton window is far too far to the right at the moment and Labour getting into power is important for helping to gradually shift it leftwards. People simply aren't going to vote in a "radical" socialist in the current political or economic climate; they want someone they can see as a safe pair of hands who can work on stabilising things somewhat. Right now, that's Starmer - the boring man who's politically central (by current standards) with a fairly clean record and an air of competence. When, in most constituencies, the options are Labour and Tory, you working to put everyone off Labour is just going to benefit the Tories.

Stop letting perfect be the enemy of good.

That and "Suella de Ville". And she's fully deserving of either title. I mentioned elsewhere in the thread, but where other politicians I dislike feel like they're either doing the wrong things for the right reasons, or they're selfish, corrupt or incompetent, Braverman feels like she gets off on the cruelty and is a genuinely evil person.

I think calling her the "second coming of Maggie" really undersells Braverman's cruelty and capacity for evil. I think Thatcher really fucked up this country, and we're still feeling the effects of some of her policies to this day. But Thatcher did genuinely think she was doing things for the right reasons - that she was making tough but necessary decisions.

Braverman seems to get off on the cruelty. A lot of her policies and ideas seem cruel for the sake of cruelty. There are plenty of politicians I've disagreed with and disliked, but they've all tended to feel like it's either because they were doing what I'd consider to be the wrong things for the right reasons (ie, they thought it would help, different approaches to what I'd want but with positive outcomes in mind, etc) or they've just been selfish, corrupt or idiotic. Braverman is a whole different thing entirely. The purpose of her policies is often the cruelty, with no tangible benefits that even she can list. She's a genuinely evil person.

Not to defend the guy because he seems awful, but a century is just absurd. There's no way I'm going to be thinking in ~50 years' time, "damn, I'm glad 80-year-old Sam Bankman-Fried is off the streets, I wouldn't feel safe if he were free". It just seems disproportionately high.

I don't think looter-shooters (and loot games in general) are inherently limiting, but loot needs to be exciting. I've played thousands of hours of Path Of Exile, and hundreds of hours of other looter games, and what holds my interest is interesting loot and build variety/depth. That simply doesn't happen in Destiny. Compare Destiny to Borderlands, for instance, and you can see how boring the loot really is. Look at games like Path Of Exile, Grim Dawn, or Last Epoch, and you can see how boring the skill trees are. In all of those other games, I've had items drop where I've been excited to redo my entire build to accommodate it, or to make a new character built around it. In Destiny, items just don't feel exciting enough. (Not every game needs to be as complex as Path Of Exile, but Destiny is incredibly shallow.)

And, of course, Destiny's story has consistently been disappointing. There's some great lore there, but they've failed to translate that into a well-told, engaging story over and over again.