Knowing what was intended to be said is great, and subtitles, for whatever reason, seem to convey this better than dubbing. Also, I feel like I can hear the emotion in the original actors' voices better with subtitles and no dubbing, despite being incapable of understanding the language. In that way, I agree it preserves the original performances.
However, moving pictures will always be an artform that are heavily reliant upon the picture part. With subtitles, I lose my ability to focus on minor but important details in film. During dialogue, this includes subtle facial expressions. I also pay less attention to all other visuals, which I find difficult to do without subtitles off entirely. I feel like I miss out on a lot of potential beauty in cinematography with subtitles enabled. (Although, to be fair, there is usually less dialogue in parts that emphasize on cinematography / setting.)
Anyway, just throwing in my two cents. I used to think people who disliked subtitles were expressing some broader dislike of foreign films, so I found their opinion perplexing or even stupid. But I've come to that side of the aisle myself, not because I dislike foreign films, but because I realize that reading a small bar of text at the bottom of the screen will always handicap my ability to take in the original experience as intended by the director of the film (in 99.9% of cases).
Really, it’s just a shitty comment that probably doesn’t belong in any discussion and should be ignored. “Huh?!” This doesn’t pass as substantive in any way whatsoever. Don’t waste your time thinking about it.
I went to the hospital two days ago. Plenty of COVID warnings were posted all over the place. One was a sign, last updated in February of 2020, that suggested you leave if you’ve been in contact with anyone who recently travelled to China, Korea, Iran, or Italy.
> If they were targeting Amazon, you would probably say "Targeting Amazon and not Google or Facebook for tech monopoly is not a good luck."
Nope.
I don’t have Facebook and have zero interactions with ANY of their products in my life. Google, Amazon, and Microsoft have been harder to extricate myself from. I could, but the inconvenience as a regular consumer would be quite difficult or costly. This hasn’t been the case with FB so I am in very strong agreement with the sentiment of the comment you replied to.
I actually hate Facebook but am reflexively disgusted with the irrational, partisan hatred of it from people who could just delete their accounts and never interact with the company again. At worst, they still log your IP on many websites if you don’t use uBlock or something similar.
> At worst, they still log your IP on many websites if you don’t use uBlock or something similar.
It's fairly easy to think of worse. One clear example is the fact that they've been running facial recognition on non-Facebook users in photos for years.
At this point, I’m think it’s safe to assume they every picture saved remotely is facial recognitioned. And every public photo has been processed by at least Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and Facebook.
It sucks but certainly isn’t anything unique to FB. It would be weird if they didn’t run it through CV even to find stuff like dogs, babies, etc.
I can understand an opinion that claims this is worse, but it’s something I don’t personally care about because I don’t take many photos with people who would post them on Facebook. It also occurs in a more public setting than private internet browsing.
> I don’t have Facebook and have zero interactions with ANY of their products in my life.
Maybe. But if any of your friends/family is on Facebook, they may have uploaded their contacts, and you quite likely have a "shadow profile" that they're using to track you across the net. You might not know Facebook, but Facebook knows you.
Is that really an issue? Its really a missing data problem. Your data is "missing" and facebook can infer with some probability you exist and the people your "shadow profile" might interact with.
If six of your contacts have provided them with the same name and email address, then they know with near certainty that those six people have you as a mutual contact. When they spot an ad profile with the same email address, that comes with a dossier on your browsing and shopping habits, which are used to infer your interests etc. It's not a "missing" data problem, it's an embarrassment of data problem.
That’s pretty much all there is to it, yeah, just a missing data problem. But once you slap the “shadow profile” label on it, it gets “shady” and “scary”. A pretty cool lesson in how to make something fairly trivial and non-threatening seem scary to people.
Note: not currently or in the past employed by Meta or any affiliated companies, so that’s just purely my own take.
Irrational hatred? It's a company that literally was complacent in a genocide. The fact that I haven't logged in during several years doesn't change that.
Just ignoring companies that do harm and saying you don't have to use them is one of the ways companies continue getting away with perpetuating harm.
Lack of information. LastPass was also relatively decent software for a while. I only stopped using it two years ago, but also noticed at the time that they have significant marketing efforts compared to the competition.
It seems like LastPass is angling to become the AOL of password managers, and by that I mean they want a bunch of old customers who never bother to switch to something better.
The hysteria is a function of how much people hated Trump. Orange man bad => orange man responsible for covid => I must act like covid is the worst, most dangerous pandemic of all time as a signal about how much I hated when Cheetoh Mussolini was president.
It’s quite absurd. I can understand hating Trump, but it’s actually time to move on. We’re going to be captive to this crap until people fully realize their reaction to the pandemic is mostly a product of their political opinion in 2020 rather than scientific fact.
I hear people bring up this example to scoff at every now and then, but it’s always some unstated rationale. The progression of technology mostly allows us to live like royalty compared to people 300 years ago, minus the terrible indignity of having to work.
I’ve yet to hear an explicitly stated argument for why I’m supposed to think someone who has access to a refrigerator, internet, food, etc. is impoverished, except for, “Somesuch CEO earns 100000000x more than they do.”
That said, sure, “welfare royalty” seems like a misnomer. I assume they typically live like regular, “middle-class” people without the job part.
I'm a little surprised: Do you honestly believe that having a refrigerator, internet, and food makes a person middle class? For refrigerator & food it's hard to have one without the other unless you spend a heck of a lot more money on takeout etc. As for internet, that's pretty much a bare minimum of communicating these days, and in many cases of poverty the way people get their internet is through their cell phones, which absent home internet (which many don't have) is both the gateway to the internet and absolutely necessary to function in today's society.
Maybe we are talking about "welfare" in different ways? In the US, welfare is a constellation of programs, not just one single program that gives $$ each week/month. Everything from subsidized school lunches, medicaid (CHIP for additional care for children), SNAP... your comment about "without the job part" indicates that you might not be aware that a very large number of people are on one or more of these programs and work fulltime+ jobs. Where I live it was a real crisis during COVID school closures because the poorest children had parents with jobs that could not be done remotely and parents could not find or afford alternatives, at the same time that any internet they had was through cell phones (usually the parents phones) so the school district needed to send out wifi hotspots & chromebooks so that students at least had the basic tools to learn... but had to be left alone (if they were old enough) or parents quit their already low-paying jobs to watch over their kids.
None of the above sounds like middle-class without the job part. As you began your comment: I hear people bring up your sort of argument to scoff at the idea that significant % of the population may fall through the cracks or just get left behind. I don't understand the point of view except as lack of direct experience with people living in these not-middle-class positions of poverty on the brink of collapse.
The impoverishment is in terms of the same things the lower class have always lacked.
A lack of agency and security. Often their situation is such that they cannot change it. For the employed, there is no time or energy to improve life. For the unemployed, employment often has a negative net income (once accounting for transport costs, reduction in benefits and costs they can currently pay with time such as food prep which would have to be paid in money).
There are no spare resources for education or entrepreneurship. No resources for fulfilling hobbies or self development.
Even if you accept the negatives for long term growth, getting an entry level job from that position requires grovelling and outright lying to your 'betters' about how you want to dedicate your life to breaking your back stacking shelves for $8/hr on a split shift 100% availability basis (that doesn't give you enough time to get home in your 3hr 'break') because you love it so much.
Then there's the precarity that poverty brings. Not knowing how you'll afford an emergency, and constantly weighing eating vs. paying the power is mentally draining and incredibly harmful to your mental health. Not conceding to your landlord's insane demands could leave you permanently homeless, and now debt collectors are calling you for a bill you have receipts of paying every 3 hours.
A car is unaffordable, public transit is underfunded, demeaning and unreliable, and pedestrian or cycling infrastructure is unaffordable.
No level of government will listen to your concerns, in fact their decisions are actually anticorrelated with public support.
On top of that you are constantly told that everything wrong is your fault, and you just have to drink fewer lattes and vote with your wallet more.
Public space is stolen and turned into space for cars or privately owned malls.
Anything your community does build for mutual benefit is torn down and rebuild to be extractive.
This is not the life of nobility. It's basically just the same as a peasant with easier access to propaganda, protein, calories, and mentally destructive dopamine buttons.
In many ways it is worse because it is so isolating, and the source of the harm is so nebulous.
