there's also way too much woke non-sense in movies. i'm a tan non-caucasian guy, before someone has a micro-aggression.
i prefer watching older movies now where they actually "build the world" the movie is set within, instead of injecting politics from our world into some made up world.
i miss when fantasy and fiction actually met the definition.
Target demographic has shifted from male to female. Your point of view is no longer being catered to because your purchasing power as a demographic is in decline.
actually on that point i’m all in on selling consumerism to as many people as possible. women are actually way easier to retain and far more susceptible to fomo.
1. Spending years of your life earning enough money so that you can begin to live at some later date is not a good way to live. Tomorrow is not guaranteed, and even if it was, you will be different and everything and everyone around will be different.
2. Human beings are not meant to live away and disconnected from everyone else. We are community creatures, even if not always very social.
I do think people overall would be happier if it was culturally, socially desirable to be, or at least come across, as humble, and consume little, especially the more resources you have. Think Warren Buffett -- maybe he does spend a lot on himself, but at least he does not come across as if he does and he certainly does not brag about it. The opposite of Instagram culture. Anyone going against this would see fierce backlash, reputational damage etc.
A new religion of sorts.
Perhaps then people would not feel the need to keep up with the Jones' as much, always feeling as if they don't have enough, worrying about their status. Once people have enough, they can have more choice in what they work on, and perhaps the economy can restructure towards more activity that actually makes people's lives better.
As is, people can't seem to stop even using Meta products or X or buying Tesla cars, despite most people likely having poor opinions of the people at the top of these companies. I do not really understand why. It is easy, these companies have no moats, there are easy alternatives, and it would change the world.
I was recently thinking the time will come when not consuming becomes a product. Imagine being paid to not use power or to not take a shower so the power and water are available for the billionaire instead to swim in his heated pool.
Insanity that the most sane goal in a capitalist system is to make enough to leave the system. Surely we have enough resources to figure out a method of distribution that doesn't involve this much suffering?
I used to think that English Wikipedia is biased, but now I've realized that it's a consensus machine. Wikipedia is just downstream of biased reporting. The editors are good about following whatever facts are most reliably citable.
Using North Korea as an example because I assume it's not a polarizing topic for people on HN. NK is especially interesting because we only have access to reporting from external news sources. Sure there's anti-regime bias, but that's just reflective of Western consensus. It's fascinating to see exactly when the editors decide it's appropriate to call Kim Jong-Un a "dictator". And also fascinating to see the editors flip back and forth on the term "supreme leader".
I wish this kind of edit-history/timeline/diff existed nicely in Wikipedia, but the existing tool in Wikipedia is too granular. I think a month view is the best for this kind of analysis.
> i personally eat a mostly plant based diet and only eat sustainably wild caught fish a few times a week.
That's commendable, but also does not fix the structural incentives for raising cattle to sell meat.
It improves your individual health, which is good. Just don't fool yourself into thinking you're fixing thr former.
> the only solution is to make hella money (billions+) so we can control incentives.
How naive.
When you get there you will be beholden to the same incentives of any billionaire. You, too, will be raping the world at that point.
The system is not bad because billionaires are inherently bad people. A well-intentioned billionaire will be incentivized to be as destructive as their peers by the structure in place.
or maybe the leftist movements are also just as batshit insane as those they claim to "oppose" but so many people are brain broken these days it is impossible to have that discussion lol
i watched wallace and gromit as a very small kid, so i didn't really understand anything.
but it made me miss my dad a lot and i'd cry the whole time. we had it on vhs and there were like 4 or 5 of them, so i'd watch them over and over. i was like 3 or 4 or something.
its weird to say but even as an adult i cannot make it through more than 10-15 min of the movie.
reply