MolochAlter

joined 1 year ago
[–] MolochAlter@lemmy.world 7 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Very small font on very thin paper.

[–] MolochAlter@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

That would be quite smart of them tbh.

[–] MolochAlter@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

Yeah I mean, it's got upsides and downsides, like everything. Unparalleled access means anyone can make something, which means a lot of things that have niche appeal can find their audience, etc.

It also means a lot of things without any appeal will be out there.

It's not good or bad in itself but it can be impractical on the consumer side of the equation, and it makes even the remarkable stuff very likely to just disappear in the shuffle.

[–] MolochAlter@lemmy.world 9 points 3 days ago

Sure, but the stock is tanking now, and the regulations are not on the books.

Like, I agree there needs to be an overhaul of a bunch of regulations regarding monopolies and such, but this doesn't help analysing the current situation where they're not in place.

[–] MolochAlter@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago (2 children)

That's just generally all of media right now. We are at perhaps the highest level of accessibility for media creation we've ever been, but that means that any schmuck with a pair of thumbs and time to waste can make something.

High accessibility means abysmal signal/noise ratio, turns out.

[–] MolochAlter@lemmy.world 20 points 3 days ago (8 children)

You realise this isn't make believe at all, right? Stocks are ownership.

If a stock dips low enough it's possible to do what microsoft did with Activision Blizzard and buy out another company wholesale, for instance.

Speculation on the stock market isn't the reason the market exists, it's a side effect of its pricing mechanisms, the actual point of it is to gather money for companies and gather stake for buyers.

If a major company like Ubisoft keeps tanking, odds are you can look forward to another major buyout and merger which will make the already horribly oligopolistic game industry even smaller, which is not good for anyone involved.

[–] MolochAlter@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

The people who made the casting choice were told by Disney they couldn't cast either, it was that or get replaced by someone else who would play ball.

It's ridiculous to expect them to remove themselves from a multimillion dollar project that would get done anyway with or without them.

[–] MolochAlter@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days ago (4 children)

Eh, they weren't happy about it but were caught between a rock and a hard place, I can sympathise.

[–] MolochAlter@lemmy.world 30 points 6 days ago (6 children)

The only one of these that is remotely acceptable, to me, is Tilda Swindon, because they explicitly detached themselves from the character to avoid getting shat on by the CCP for casting a Tibetan and from Americans for casting a Chinese person.

The others are all crap, IMO.

Every time a character is washed we lose the chance to be exposed to global actors that would fit their profile.

[–] MolochAlter@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

They did not say "do I enjoy it?" they said "Is it worth the effort?" and if having food made exactly to your taste is not worth the effort you either have no standards and would be fine with microwave slop and fast food, or you lack the skill to make something that satisfies you.

Either way, skill issue.

The one exception would be if you're disabled or something, and I don't mean "I have adhd" disabled, I mean "I physically can't stand at the stove for 20-30 minites" disabled.

[–] MolochAlter@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Is it worth the effort?

No.

Sounds like you suck at cooking, my guy.

view more: next ›