Random Shit

110 readers
1 users here now

Post your random stuff here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
26
 
 

He loves the shit.

I grab one of those jars from the fridge and open the aluminum wrapping and he goes crazy, begging for me to drop a smidge of yogurt on the floor so he can lick it up.

It doesn’t matter how quiet I try to be, he hears that aluminum foil and comes running for it and will not stop meowing until he is satisfied.

27
 
 
28
 
 
29
 
 
30
 
 

🤣

31
 
 
32
 
 
33
1
a king dude (hilariouschaos.com)
submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 
 
34
 
 

For Alice who likes pink and is goth and thus would naturally be attracted to pinkness and death

35
 
 

Absolutely! Here’s my concept for a truly terrifying creature feature:


Title: The Hollowing

Plot:

In a remote, abandoned mining town, a group of researchers is sent to investigate the source of an inexplicable sinkhole that’s swallowing everything—trees, animals, and even buildings. What they discover is a massive, ancient creature that’s been hibernating deep beneath the earth for centuries, now awakened by seismic activity. The creature isn’t just physically destructive; it exudes an aura of primal fear that distorts reality, forcing the characters to confront their worst nightmares as they try to survive.

The story follows Dr. Elena Cross, a geologist with a troubled past, as she leads the team. As the creature closes in, their understanding of what’s real and what’s a hallucination begins to blur. The survivors must unravel the creature’s origins to discover its one weakness—if they don’t succumb to madness first.


The Monster:

The creature, known as Nyxoth, would be designed to maximize primal fear:

Shape and Movement:

It’s an amorphous, shifting mass that resembles a grotesque fusion of deep-sea creatures and subterranean horrors. Its body appears to be made of obsidian-like scales that glint faintly in the dark, giving it an otherworldly, almost liquid appearance.

It moves like an avalanche, both crushing and engulfing everything in its path. Its amorphous limbs can stretch and splinter into spidery appendages to grab victims.

Face/Head:

The head is a gaping void surrounded by rows of jagged, glowing, asymmetrical teeth. The void "screams," emitting a sound that isn’t heard but felt, causing intense nausea and hallucinations.

It has no eyes, but glowing veins across its head pulse in sync with its heartbeat, giving it a terrifying, almost hypnotic allure.

Behavior:

Nyxoth “feeds” on fear, growing larger and more intelligent the more terrified its prey becomes. Its aura twists reality, making survivors see loved ones, hear whispers, or relive their darkest moments.

It can mimic voices, luring victims into traps. When it kills, it doesn’t consume its prey but instead leaves behind “husks,” eerily lifelike statues of blackened stone.


Tone and Atmosphere:

The movie would mix the creeping dread of The Thing with the relentless force of It Follows. The environment plays a big role: dimly lit tunnels, collapsing structures, and the oppressive sense of being hunted in an isolated wasteland. There would be a strong focus on sound design, with the creature’s “heartbeat scream” and the unsettling silences between attacks keeping audiences on edge.


What do you think? Would you watch it, or does it already sound too scary?

36
 
 

it’s always worth taking a moment to focus on the little things that bring you joy—whether that’s a hobby, a favorite song, a comforting routine, or even the satisfaction of a good conversation.

What’s been bringing you joy lately?

37
 
 

Whether social media should be dominated by politics depends on the perspective and goals of its users and platforms. However, there are significant pros and cons to the prevalence of politics on social media:


Pros of Politics on Social Media

  1. Increased Awareness

Social media is a powerful tool for spreading political awareness and educating people on key issues, events, and policies that affect their lives.

  1. Accessibility to Diverse Opinions

It gives a voice to people who might otherwise be marginalized or excluded from mainstream political discussions, fostering inclusivity.

  1. Grassroots Movements

Activists and grassroots movements use social media to organize, mobilize, and create change, often bypassing traditional media gatekeeping.

  1. Engagement and Civic Participation

Platforms encourage civic engagement, such as voter registration campaigns, petitions, or discussions about local issues.


Cons of Politics Dominating Social Media

  1. Polarization

Constant exposure to political content can deepen ideological divides and lead to echo chambers, where users are only exposed to viewpoints they already agree with.

  1. Misinformation and Propaganda

Social media can easily amplify misinformation, fake news, and propaganda, misleading users and eroding trust in legitimate institutions.

  1. Toxicity and Hostility

Political discussions often devolve into hostility, harassment, and trolling, discouraging meaningful dialogue and creating a toxic online environment.

  1. Overshadowing Other Content

Excessive focus on politics may push out other types of content (e.g., art, entertainment, education) that contribute to a diverse and enjoyable social media experience.

  1. Mental Health Impact

Constant exposure to political conflict, negativity, and bad news can lead to stress, anxiety, and burnout for users.


A Balanced Approach

Social media should neither be completely devoid of politics nor entirely dominated by it. Instead, platforms can aim to strike a balance by:

Improving Algorithms: Platforms should diversify content recommendations to ensure users see a mix of topics.

Encouraging Civil Discourse: Promoting rules and tools to foster respectful conversations on political topics.

Empowering Users: Giving users control over the type of content they see, including the ability to opt-out of political posts.

Combating Misinformation: Actively fact-checking and addressing the spread of false information.

Ultimately, politics on social media is inevitable given its role in shaping society, but it shouldn’t overshadow the platform's potential to connect people across a wide range of interests and experiences.

38
 
 

Lemmy, as a relatively new and decentralized platform, faces several challenges that contribute to its current dynamic of having mostly lurkers and fewer active content creators or commenters. Here’s a breakdown of the reasons:


  1. Smaller User Base

Critical Mass Problem: Lemmy lacks the sheer volume of users that larger platforms like Reddit have, which results in less content being generated and fewer discussions happening.

Network Effect: Many potential contributors stay on Reddit or other platforms because their friends, communities, and audiences are already there.


  1. Content Discovery Challenges

Federated Nature: Lemmy's decentralized model, where communities (instances) are spread across servers, can make discovering content and engaging with new communities less intuitive for casual users.

Lack of Trending Content: Unlike Reddit's front page or popular feed, Lemmy doesn’t have a robust centralized system for showcasing trending or interesting posts across instances.


  1. Early Adoption Phase

Tech-Savvy Audience: Many of Lemmy’s early adopters are tech-savvy individuals who may be more inclined to observe and test the platform than actively post.

Niche Appeal: The platform appeals to a smaller subset of users (e.g., open-source advocates, privacy-conscious individuals), resulting in less diversity in content and engagement styles.


  1. Lack of Incentives for Posting

Fewer Viewers and Engagement: Creators are less motivated to post if they feel their content won’t reach a wide audience or generate meaningful discussions.

No Established Culture: Unlike Reddit, which has a well-established culture of upvotes, memes, and humor, Lemmy is still forming its identity, leaving potential posters uncertain about what content will succeed.


  1. Technical and Usability Barriers

Learning Curve: For many users, setting up accounts on different instances and understanding the federated model is more complex than joining Reddit.

Limited Features: Lemmy lacks some of the polished tools and features (e.g., rich multimedia embedding, extensive moderation tools) that Reddit offers, which can discourage active participation.


  1. Content Paradox (Lurker’s Problem)

Chicken-and-Egg Problem: Users hesitate to post because there’s not much engagement, but engagement doesn’t grow because users hesitate to post.

Lurker Mentality: Many users join Lemmy to observe and explore the platform but don’t feel compelled to contribute due to the low activity.


  1. Perception as a Reddit Clone

Identity Crisis: Lemmy is often seen as a "Reddit alternative" rather than a unique platform, which can make users compare it unfavorably to Reddit and hesitate to invest time in creating content.


  1. Resistance to Change

Reddit's Dominance: Many users are reluctant to leave Reddit unless they feel strongly about its controversies or shortcomings.

Habitual Behavior: People are creatures of habit, and switching platforms requires breaking ingrained patterns of usage.


Potential Solutions to Foster Activity

Centralized Discovery Features: Improve discoverability of cross-instance content to draw in more creators and commenters.

Community Building: Encourage specific communities to migrate together, creating vibrant hubs of activity.

Incentives for Posting: Offer features or rewards that encourage users to create and engage with content.

Simplify the Onboarding Process: Make it easier for non-technical users to join and navigate instances.

Marketing and Outreach: Broaden Lemmy’s appeal by targeting diverse user groups and emphasizing its unique strengths (e.g., decentralization, privacy).


Lemmy’s potential lies in its ability to differentiate itself from Reddit and create an engaging, community-driven ecosystem. However, achieving this will require addressing its current barriers to active participation.

39
 
 

Yes, it’s possible for a serious Reddit alternative to emerge, but it would require specific factors aligning to compete with Reddit's massive user base, extensive content variety, and established community dynamics. Here's a breakdown of why and how a contender might arise:


Why a Reddit Alternative Could Succeed

  1. User Discontent with Reddit

Recent controversies (e.g., API pricing, moderation disputes) have alienated both users and developers, creating a demand for alternative platforms.

Dissatisfaction with changes to the user interface or monetization strategies could push users to look elsewhere.

  1. Decentralization Trends

Platforms like Lemmy (part of the fediverse) demonstrate growing interest in decentralized alternatives where users have more control over data and communities.

  1. Monetization Resistance

Reddit's push toward more aggressive monetization (ads, premium features) might drive users to platforms that prioritize community over profit.

  1. Niche or Specialized Platforms

A focused alternative catering to specific user groups (e.g., tech enthusiasts, hobbyists) could carve out a strong foothold by offering unique tools or better content curation.

  1. Open Source and Community-Owned Platforms

Alternatives that are open-source, transparent, and community-driven could appeal to users frustrated with corporate control.


Challenges for a Reddit Alternative

  1. Network Effect

Reddit benefits from a massive existing user base. New platforms must overcome the "empty community" issue to build momentum.

  1. Content Diversity

Reddit’s variety (from memes to niche scientific discussions) is hard to replicate. A new platform would need a wide range of communities to appeal to different user groups.

  1. Moderation and Governance

Reddit's volunteer moderation model is both a strength and a weakness. Alternatives need a governance structure that avoids over-centralization while maintaining community standards.

  1. Technology and Scale

Scaling to Reddit's size is costly and requires robust infrastructure to handle large amounts of traffic and data.


Examples of Potential Contenders

  1. Lemmy/Kbin

Part of the fediverse, these platforms allow users to create and join decentralized communities, appealing to those valuing independence and open protocols.

  1. Discord (Expanded Use)

While not a direct alternative, Discord serves as a hub for many niche communities and could evolve to compete with Reddit’s discussion forums.

  1. Hive Social or Mastodon

These platforms cater to users seeking less centralized alternatives and could integrate better community tools over time.

  1. A New Platform

A startup with innovative features, community-first policies, and backing from influential groups could disrupt Reddit’s dominance.


Key Features a Contender Needs

Better Moderation Tools: To balance free expression with healthy community dynamics.

Decentralization Options: To appeal to users wary of centralized control.

Monetization Alternatives: To avoid alienating users and developers.

Seamless User Experience: To minimize friction for newcomers.

Strong Launch Strategy: Leveraging influencers, niche communities, or unique features to attract early adopters.


Verdict: While no single platform has unseated Reddit yet, growing user discontent and interest in decentralized platforms suggest that a serious contender could emerge, especially if Reddit continues to prioritize corporate interests over community values.

40
 
 

Microblogging is more popular than internet forums for several reasons, reflecting how online interaction has evolved. Here are the key factors:

  1. Ease of Use

Microblogging platforms like Twitter or Mastodon provide a simple, fast interface where users can post quick updates, images, or links without needing to follow complex forum threads or categories.

  1. Real-Time Interaction

Microblogging emphasizes real-time posting and instant responses, making it more dynamic than forums, which often focus on long-form discussions.

  1. Social Connectivity

Microblogging platforms are designed for networking and virality, enabling users to connect with friends, celebrities, or organizations, often with a more personal touch than forums.

  1. Discoverability and Reach

Content on microblogging platforms is easily discoverable via hashtags, trending topics, or algorithms, whereas forums are usually niche-focused and harder to stumble upon without deliberate searching.

  1. Mobile Optimization

Microblogging apps are mobile-friendly and cater to users on the go, making them accessible for quick interactions compared to forums, which may not be as mobile-optimized.

  1. Brevity and Accessibility

Posts are short and to the point, appealing to users who prefer quick consumption over lengthy discussions. Forums often require more reading and investment.

  1. Algorithmic Feeds

Platforms like X (formerly Twitter) use algorithms to curate feeds, ensuring users see content tailored to their preferences. Forums rely on users manually exploring threads, which can feel outdated.

  1. Visual and Multimedia Features

Microblogging supports rich multimedia formats like videos, GIFs, and interactive polls, making posts more engaging. Forums are often text-heavy.

  1. Global Trends and Community Size

Microblogging platforms operate at a global scale, drawing massive audiences. Forums are usually smaller, community-specific spaces.

  1. Cultural Shift Towards Quick Consumption

Internet users increasingly prefer bite-sized content over in-depth discussions, aligning with microblogging’s format over traditional forums' deeper dives.

Despite this, forums remain valuable for niche communities seeking detailed discussions and less transient interactions, highlighting the different roles both formats play online.

41
42
1
Deleted (hilariouschaos.com)
submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 
 

Deleted

43
1
LEMMY POST TITLE (hilariouschaos.com)
submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 
 

SAYS SOMETHING POLITICALLY CHARGED WITH EXCESSIVE EMOTIONAL UNHINGEMENT

44
 
 

The Matrix is interesting because arguably only the first movie was classic. The movies that came afterwards were big and flashy but lacked the impact of the first.

I remember seeing Matrix 2 in theatres, and the scene on the highway is really a good example. There was a massive car chase, a fight on a transport truck, lots of explosions and flash and kung-fu fighting, but I was bored. Back then, televisions were vacuum tubes, and I was watching the movie on a giant movie theatre screen in high definition, but I was bored.

The first film had quiet moments, but it also had tension because a lot of the characters in the movie do die. We see several people die over the course of the movie and they don't come back, they aren't saved by a deus ex machina. It seemed contrived the way in Matrix 2 they basically needed to teleport Neo to the other side of the planet so he could be kept out of a scene and he had to superman it back.

Ironically though, you can do a great story about a character on God mode. Japan has an entire genre of anime where the main character gets cheat powers.

Another way isekai handles the "god mode" problem is to make it so you don't care the MC is overpowered. In The Matrix, the end of the first movie chastens the Matrix. They know Neo is The One, and they respect him deeply even though they're opposing him. It sort of means there's nowhere to go. He's overpowered and everyone knows he's overpowered and everyone is scared of him. By contrast, in isekai often the enemies think they stand a chance and so they use the perceived imbalance to really kick the dog, really make the audience hate them. The fun of a "God Mode" character is seeing an overconfident and really evil antagonist get their comeuppance. They thought they were in control, but in reality they were just a fly buzzing around the MC waiting to be righteously swatted.

Isekai can also make their cheat powers interesting by making learning them an arc. Matrix 2 for example could have shown that the two things Neo did at the end of Matrix 1 were not enough to deal with the strongest threats the Matrix could muster, and so he'd have to use hard work and diligence to learn the fundamentals of his powers and become much more powerful so he could overcome the greatest threats. This could have an inherent tension in The Matrix because he could only train on his powers while inside The Matrix, but being inside the Matrix would also be the one time he was actually at risk from it as well. Instead, we got a whole Zion subplot.

One of the reasons this kind of training arc also works is that it demonstrates that the power alone isn't what makes the hero heroic. Most isekai protagonists with cheat powers are often told their powers are useless and won't be beneficial to anyone. The reason the protagonist is successful isn't just the cheat powers, but because of the hard work, diligence, and ingenuity that helped them master their powers. Outside of Isekai, consider Naruto. He starts off as hated, then has this gross red chakra that makes him more powerful but takes away his humanity and doesn't make him all-powerful as most high-level opponents defeat him in that state. He has to learn how to master chakra and the rasengan, but he also has to use his innate virtue to communicate with, tame, and later befriend the nine tails to change the nasty red chakra into something that turns him into a glowing being of overwhelming power. He never would have earned that power without his innate virtue and his clever intuitions about how to connect with a being that is a prisoner inside of him (with the help of other jinkurichi like Killer Bee).

The final movie could have meant finally transcending the Matrix altogether and having Neo (and his friends who could have been somewhat powered up by the new wisdom Neo gains during his training to keep them relevant) entering the machine mind. The concept of an Agent Smith who sucks people up like a virus is still acceptable, but the movies never investigate the idea that Smith gains his power through non-virtuous means while Neo would earn his power through acts of virtue. In the actual movie, Neo gains real-world Matrix powers that are not in any way investigated or explained for no apparent reason than he's special. Smith ultimately wins because he's more powerful, and only through a philosophical deus ex machina does Neo defeat Smith. It was a cool fight, but it doesn't feel like a good payoff, and it doesn't really feel earned. If instead Neo gains some measure of control over the robots in the physical world because of his brave actions in the virtual world, then that could help resolve part of the Zion plot. In the end, you could still have a major fight between The One Neo and The Many Smith, but it could be framed in such a way that Neo's fight is with power he gained through discipline, virtue, and bravery and the support and love of his friends while Smith's powers were gained through greed, vice, and cowardice but rejecting friendship, and in the end Neo wins because of the attributes inherent to that virtuous rise to power, and Smith would lose due to the attributes inherent to his vicious rise to power.

One final thing is you could tie the concept of virtue vs. vice, of the one among many vs. many subsuming the one and you could help win the war against the machines by convincing the ruling class of the machines that humans and machines can work together after all. There could even be a character who similar to how Dozer and Tank exist entirely in the real world exist entirely in the Matrix. I mean a main character who can join in on Matrix adventures, perhaps Neo's teacher in the second film who is a rogue AI program or something. In that way, the end of the machine war and the end of The Matrix would be representative of Neo's virtue rather than just the fact he's machine Jesus.

I think the reason the Wachowskis didn't go this route lies in the first movie: "Simulations and Simulacra", one of the defining tomes of postmodernism. The rejection of overarching narratives means that ultimately they couldn't accept the victory being because the good guy was virtuous and the bad guy was vicious, because that conception breaks the ideology. This explains to an extent why the Matrix movies have been so disappointing since the first one, and it also explains why they didn't take these clear and obvious steps that would have made the trilogy likely one of the greatest movie franchises of all time. Their ideology simply couldn't accept a broad narrative like that.

I think the fact that Neo is a postmodern superhero is the key here. His job was to deconstruct the established narratives, and once he's done that the movie ends. However, you can't deconstruct into building something, so the later movies feel directionless because of it. You'd have to transition into either traditional narratives or at least into a metamodern conception where you destroy but you balance it with building.

I think I might understand why the Wachowskis failed to pivot from postmodernism: They are fish made of the water they were born in. They might have had pretensions for philosophical depth, but in reality The Matrix was a mirror reflecting the postmodern narratives that had become dominant by the late 1990s. Being well-versed in the philosophy of the age, they were able to produce a seminal work reflecting those values. Beyond that, they floundered because they were able to integrate philosophical speeches into their work, but weren't able to effectively tell stories about those alternative philosophical systems. Similar to if I tried to write a story about living in the barrios of Mexico, I could read some stories and try to create something based on that, but the inauthenticity of the stories would be unavoidable.

45
46
47
48
 
 

Arguably most societies over millennia existed without financial products, particularly the current conception of them in forms like bitcoin and global prediction markets. Financial products in our current conception of them are, at the most charitable, only about 400 years old when the Dutch invented stock markets. Before that we might have had banks, loans, currency, and contracts, but that's when modern (in a literal sense) financial products were invented. Since World War 2, we've seen the invention of postmodern financial products; financial products totally disconnected from creating any sort of tangible good or service.

Bitcoin in particular is a poster child for this problem. You have a currency with a multi-billion dollar market cap that you can't use to buy most tangible goods and services in existence today.

Tesla is another example. While you might be tempted to believe that Elon Musk's Tesla is a company that became valuable by making cool things, you'd be mistaken. Tesla is the smallest car company on a public stock exchange by sales, and while most companies have multiple product categories, Tesla became incredibly valuable selling only passenger cars. Only in the past year did they even get a pickup truck model. Despite that, it's a company more valuable than the rest of the auto sector combined. Elon Musk didn't create an auto company, he created a financial instrument that routinely goes up.

When money ends up chasing games that play money instead of things that produce tangible goods and tangible services that people require, and actually starts to become a cancer, eating up good people and good resources that could have been spent on real wealth. Money going into things because they make money and nothing else is like an ouroboros trying to grow fat by eating its own tail. It may feel sated because it's belly is full, but in reality it slowly starves itself to death because while it consumes itself it uses up resources that are no longer being added to the system.

For this reason, a society that is so focused on financial products and so derisive of real manufacturing or other forms of production of tangible goods or services cannot last the Long haul, and I think we're seeing that right now because the actual quality of life of individuals is worse today than it was 25 years ago. Real incomes have been stagnant for a very long time, but moreover the lack of real tangible productivity has meant that the tangible things that we have left has become increasingly expensive. Because we have entire industries full of people working at desks pushing piles of beans around metaphorically, we aren't building enough homes and so an entire generation, arguably multiple generations of people are completely priced out of the housing market for the rest of their lives. Food is going up in price, which has caused instability in developing nations. Energy has become scarcer, and people always focus on the idea of energy as frivolous but people need to eat their homes or they die. Perhaps most importantly, the spiritual toll that comes from a civilization that knows that they don't actually do anything is cataclysmic.

Now I don't want you to get me wrong here, I'm not saying that we don't need financial products or that I want Bitcoin or prediction markets to disappear, and certainly not just because they're part of a certain product category. What I am saying is our priorities are completely misplaced. I think that it will mean the end of our society and our civilization if we don't course correct. We're already starting to see it where other civilizations that aren't like ours are starting to be much more dominant culturally and in terms of tangible power of us. The amount of sleep lost over the island of Taiwan (that actually manufactures important stuff) should be an eye-opener for all of us.

The realignment would require focusing less on postmodern financial products that are removed entirely from tangible goods or services, and instead focus on financial products which enable efficiency, innovation, or risk mitigation in ways that indirectly support tangible industries. In the case of something like bitcoin, it would require actually solving the problems it has to make it a viable alternative to fiat or commodity currencies in day to day use. This would inherently free up resources tied up in postmodern financial products and would lead to a reallocation of resources towards things with tangible productivity, which ought to be the final goal of financial products in general.

There are two types of change we need to see: Cultural and legislative.

Culturally, we need to see a move away from valuing making money by making money and towards making money by doing something of tangible value in the world. Bitcoin's current market cap is based entirely on people gambling that they will own a piece of all the money on earth when more people use bitcoin, and that's not a healthy attitude or a moral one. The reason China is so powerful and Taiwan is so important is that they make tangible goods people around the world use, and that's because of a cultural philosophical difference in the way Confuscian thought which even in Communist China dominates the mindset in the region. That philosophy holds doing real stuff as important for a harmonious society. We need the same viewpoint in our society or the ouroborus will starve eating its own tail.

Legally, we need to make moves to reintroduce natural forces that would limit the size of a company. Part of the reason everyone is trying to create monopolies they can price as if they'll own the market always and forever is that huge megacorps are so competitive despite being so damn inefficient. Eliminating corporate personhood would be one good step, as well as setting up fines or punishments for crimes to be proportional to the size of the company's market cap so as your company's size grows the risk of gaps in compliance and the like grow disproportionately. We might want to consider for particularly heinous crimes a "corporate jail sentence" where all the assets in a company are frozen and cannot be used for a certain period of time, and a "corporate death sentence" where a corporate charter is revoked entirely and the company assets are individually put up for auction. The idea would be that as companies grow, the risk of running the company grows so much that it doesn't make sense to bother taking on multiplied risk for additional gains.

In a sane world, Tesla should be priced for what it is -- a barely profitable lower tier auto manufacturer. In a sane world, Bitcoin should be priced for what it is -- a rarely used computer science experiment whose actual utility is fairly minimal -- I'd be surprised if more than a few million dollars a year in bitcoin is used as an actual currency, so its market cap should reflect that reality, not the guess that one day it will be all the money.

49
 
 

Post yours too in the Comments

50
1
Reddit Award (hilariouschaos.com)
submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 
 
view more: ‹ prev next ›