It’s do-gooder derogation. People get upset when they see someone else being more moral than them. Instead of trying to either grow themselves or accept their own imperfections, they lash out.

And some people just like being part of the in-group, and see vegans as an easy out-group to mock.

One of the first times I took the path train (it’s a light rail in NJ/NYC. Basically another subway line). I sit down, and an older guy in a suit sits down next to me. He’s got like a box in a plastic bag in his lap. No big deal.

This was in like 2002. He didn’t have a cell phone or earphones. Just sitting quietly, waiting for the train to leave.

He started to giggle. Little chuckles. And then escalated to full laughs. It rises and rises until he’s like cackling. And then he calms down, reverses all the way through giggles and back to silence. Never said a word.

I don’t know what was in the box. I didn’t ask. I assume he just got away with a killer heist.

I assumed they meant in the “build vs maintain” sense. Builders add to the conversation by telling their own stories. Maintainers instead focus more on “wow what was that like for you?”

https://haileymagee.substack.com/p/these-three-communication-differences

But that’s a guess.

Mostly specific to online dating, but: People who dead end a conversation. Like, their profile says they love the author NK Jemisen. I write, “oh, I love her books! Did you read The City We Became? It’s a total love letter to the city”.

They response with, “no”.

Friend, that’s not an effective way to play this game.

If you are not interested in dating, just unmatch. Maybe you swiped by accident or when drunk. I don’t care. I’m not going to remember.

If you are interested in dating, you should put some effort in. If you don’t throw the ball back, you look like you’re either uninterested or incapable. I don’t want to date someone who’s not interested, nor someone who can’t carry a conversation.

You might be thinking, “Well they asked a yes/no question and I answered as such”. Technically true, but not productive. What do you expect them to do? Ask another first-message-tier question? This isn’t supposed to be a one sided interview like you’re applying for a job. You’re supposed to be a full participant. Ask a question (preferably related to the topic). Or, if you’re not interested anymore, unmatch.

You might also be thinking, “well I don’t have time for a whole conversation right now”. Ok. Do you ever have time? If not, delete the app because you don’t have time to date. If you do, answer when you have time. These things are asynchronous. If you’re afraid you’re going to forget, I don’t know man write yourself a note. That’s a life management problem outside the scope of dating advice.

This whole thing peeves me because it feels like people want “banter” and witty conversation, but they don’t want to do their half of it. They want to be passively entertained, but this isn’t some podcast you can listen to when dozing. These are (hopefully) real people looking for connection.

My therapist told me that people have different styles of communication and that’s okay. Maybe some people would be happy where their conversations are no deeper than “Did you hear the new slothrust album?” “No”. Doesn’t seem like an effective way to get to know someone to me.

A drink and food at a local spot. Wasn’t a black Friday sale or anything, but we stopped in.

Didn’t chase any sales or buy anything of note. Don’t need much.

Saint Luigi preserve us.

I care about music. I look for new stuff I enjoy. I listen to albums. I think about the lyrics. I see bands live when they tour. Sometimes I make mixes with a theme.

I used to ask people sometimes if they made mixes, and if so where they fell on the spectrum of “these are some songs I like” and “each songs inclusion and ordering has been carefully considered”.

I don’t just hit shuffle or let an algorithm wander through music. Songs are like spells and different tunes evoke different feelings.

I don’t relate to people when they say they like “all kinds of music” or “I listen to a dozen new songs every day”. That’s just not enough time spent with those new songs to form any sort of bond, for me.

I only have a couple friends who have what I call an interoperable relationship with music. It’s not that we like the same music, but that the music we each like, we like in a mutually comprehensible way. Like I can say to my friend, "oh this song could go right next to that song because xyz ", and they’ll be like “oh that’s good. abc fits in with them, too”.

My other friends, talking about music, at most I get a “cool song, bro”.

He could maybe take it and donate the money, but people are so low information they wouldn’t find out.

I’ve been buying music (mostly from Bandcamp) for years. Now I have a hefty library and the people making music got paid

Yeah I just… Don’t need that much stuff. Most of my money goes to food and shelter.

Conservatism, probably. It’s cruel and often self destructive.

That humans (all of us) are such emotional creatures and that we do often can’t rise above it. You tell someone a fact they don’t like and the brain just shuts that down.

These feel related somehow

I’m sure there are companies that are at least more good than bad. Teachers pay teachers. Meetup. Bandcamp before they sold. That’s all I have off the top of my head. But even so capitalism invites cruelty, and the best intentions can easily wither under the pressure to make more money.

I work for a very large company involved in medicine. They make machines to do like blood work. That’s fine. People need that. But they treat many of their workers like trash. I don’t get paid for holidays and get the legal minimum sick leave per year. Their mission isn’t especially evil , but their behavior sucks.

I’m still good friends with two of the people I dated non monogamously. They’re good people. Not all the matches were strictly better- there are a lot of theater kids and burning-man types, and that’s almost never my type. A lot of lawyers too, surprisingly, but I think some kinds of lawyers are super hot so that worked out.

100% agree that people aren’t taught how to be clear about their needs, and the common problems of guesswork and assumptions. Non-monogamy practically requires you actually talk about what you’re aiming for.

Monogamy also often imports some unhealthy behaviors, like just assuming you have full access to your partner all the time. With non monogamy you typically have to be more intentional about plans and time together, and I think that makes for a better relationship.

I was in a monogamous relationship and had feelings for someone else. I didn’t want to cheat, but it felt wrong I couldn’t do anything with this other person that I felt chemistry with. I knew I wouldn’t be upset if my partner had other people so long as she also spent time with me. After that relationship ended (for other reasons) I decided not to put myself in the same situation.

Ironically, pursuing non monogamy means there are far fewer people to date. I was getting a viable match like once a month or so, maybe less. When I switched back to monogamy as an option, it was like 1d4-1 a week.

• swinging: just sex
• open relationship: sex and limited emotional investment
• polyfidelity- multiple whole relationships, but the system is closed to new members

I think a good step would be if people could admit the companies they work for are making the world worse. I’ve met some people who work for Google who do some backflips about how no the company is good and definitely they’re good people and it’s not the $300k salary talking.

Linux is free, for a trivial counter example.

Difficulty settings are, first and foremost, accessibility settings.

I’m not opposed to more options but I think this tactic is distracting and generates more pushback than it wins converts.

Are games art? I’d say so, usually. Some are more like toys than art, but many have creative expression

If they are are, must all art be accessible to all people? Well, what does accessible mean exactly? To understand it completely? Then I’d say trivially no, because there are many books that are incomprehensible to many people. No one is going to say “House of Leaves” is inaccessible and the author did a gatekeeping by writing it as such. No one is going to say Finnegans Wake is ableist because it’s hard to understand.

Must all aspects of all art be completable by all people? I’d also say trivially no. You might have a segment in French that doesn’t translate well. You can dub it or subtitle it, but the original experience will remain inaccessible unless the audience spends years mastering French.

I bring that up because some games will have within the game, not a metagame menu setting, easier or harder routes. For example, Elden Ring with a big shield and spirit ashes is significantly easier than a naked parry build. Is the expectation that everyone should be able to finish in both styles? If there’s a hard mode, must everyone be able to finish it?

Should everyone be able to trivially 100% every game?

Personally I think the floor is everyone should be able to interface with the game. Change inputs. Add subtitles.

I don’t really think “I can’t party this spear guy” is an accessibility problem the same way “I’m color blind and can’t read the text” is.

But again, I don’t care if someone wants a god-mode with auto-parry. It just feels like it’s bundling some unrelated ideas together. You’re not necessarily disabled if you’re bad at parrying in dark souls.

It’s debt in the sense of obligation, not literal finance. If we get more volume, we’re going to be obligated to change this so it does something smarter than dumping output to a csv on disk. For now it’s fine, even if it’s annoying to scp and parse the files every time you want to see something.

I don’t think there’s less stuff. I think there’s more slop and trash, so the percent of good stuff is lower.