In my opinion even ONE movie / year is "oversaturation."

Granted, there are a lot of properties attached to the MCU. If these were truly standalone, and not the "mashups" that MCU movies became (which is when I started to lose interest ... around the time that Age of Ultron came out, which was 9 years ago now) then it might not feel like saturation since each would bear no notable connection to the others.

But consider Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy:

- Batman Begins: 2005
- The Dark Knight: 2008
- The Dark Knight Rises: 2012

We had 3 years and 4 years respectively between each instalment. I remember the anticipation and excitment that the next one was coming out ... eventually.

But when it comes to the MCU ... just wait a week and yet another mindless CGI action flick with no room for character development or complex plot comes out. And let's see how many superheroes we can cram into it because it's the superheroes on the poster that sell, apparently .. and not the actual story. And we'll use those cameos and B stories to sell tickets to the others so moviegoers will feel like they missed something if they don't watch them all.

If they continue that with 2 or 3 movies per year, nothing changes. Even if it were just one movie per year, nothing really changes IMO. There's no time to look back fondly at the previous instalment and wait with anxious anticipation for the next one which isn't for a couple of years. There's no time to catch up on what you missed because there's just too much of it. And if you forgot what happened in one instalment, forget re-watching it. Who has the time when there's another 12 movies this week to catch up on?

This is the same reason I can't stay interested with professional wrestling, even though my wife and I are fans. There's just too much content to keep up with, and the 90/10 rule applies (90% is garbage but you watch hoping to see that 10% that is gold), so we end up just not watching it at all.

I've been using Linux on all of my personal devices since the late 90s. I used Ubuntu for many years but switched to Mint not because of ideological reasons around systemd or snaps or what-have-you, but because they did the one thing that companies like Microsoft do to their customers that keeps me using Linux.

They changed the desktop, radically and dramatically in ways that completely fucked how I use my device.

And sure, it's Linux, so I could switch the DE ... but the entire reason I used Ubuntu was so that everything would "just work" on a fresh install and I wouldn't have to do that level of heavy customization.

I can't remember what the new desktop was ... was it Unity? All I know is that this is when Canonical was following Microsoft in thinking that "the future is touch-screens and mobile!"

I don't know what is driving the growing Linux use. But I do know that what really bothers me as a tech consumer is the constant trend-chasing and forced change that impacts the user experience in very major ways. All I want is stability, predictability and boring. If some new tech comes out that has the potential to improve my work flow or my life, I want to be able to evaluate that and make the change gradually on my own terms.

I don't want to be forced to use Cloud storage. I don't want to be "forced" to buy an "AI PC" (whatever the fuck that means) because it's all you can buy. I don't want to be "forced" to use web apps for things that can be desktop applications. I have a love/hate relationship with web apps. On the one hand they have enabled to use Linux at work the last few years because I can use Zoom, Slack, GMail and other work-required tools. But as an end user, I can't stand the fact that the company can push UX changes on me that I never opted in to or wanted.

I miss the days when companies would have to spend resources doing beta tests and focus group their new versions and then people could choose whether or not they wanted to "upgrade" by reading the reviews. These days, changes get push on you during weekly release cycles. Don't get me started on the infuriating Pendo pop-ups that tell you about new features that you couldn't give a shit about.

Canonical violated my trust by doing that very business trend chasing thing that drives me to Linux in the first place. So I switched to Mint and for the last 10 years or so have no reason to switch to any other distro because it gives me that stability and predictability that I depend on.

So it could be ... just maybe ... that people are fed up with companies pushing constant change on them and that for first time in tech history, Linux is the "stable" choice.

Survivorship bias is real, so is the 90/10 rule (90% of everything made is garbage). However, while this is subjective and not at all scientific, it is worth pointing out that "survivorship" in this context tends to mean the things that we look back on and remember fondly. I don't remember much of the new stuff that I've watched over the last few years.

It's possible (perhaps even likely) that that's a function of age: when I was younger everything was new and so I was less critical. It's also possible that there was less available, content-wise, when I was younger and so for that reason as well my standards were lower back then. All I know is that whether it's me or "them", I find myself not watching much of anything new these days, especially TV shows. There is the occasional series. The Last of Us and Mrs. Davis are the two most recent series I remember watching all of. There hasn't been a single new [to me] series I've watched in 2024 yet that I can recall. And I find that when I load up a streaming service I tend to spend more time looking for something I want to watch than I do actually watching something, and more often than not I close it and go do something else.

Then again, "back then" we used to say of cable "200 channels and there's nothing on."

It's the same with their Disney World counterpart, Tomorrowland Speedway, in Florida. My wife and I were there in Februrary and because I had never been to Magic Kingdom before (and was 30 years since being to Disney World at all), I wanted to ride absolutely everything. Speedway was one of the few attractions that I won't ride again when we return.

The big issue is that it feels extremely dated. Back in the 50s, when Disneyland was first built, the automotive industry was at its peak in the USA, and the attraction gave children the opportunity to do a "grown up" thing. Today it feels very out of place in "Tomorrowland." It's the type of mediocre "filler" attraction that feels like it exists more for little kids. Nothing super wrong with it when viewed in that light, but Disney is supposed to be great at theming and Tomrrowland as a concept is something that can find itself outdated very quickly and needs to be constantly renewed. Autopia / Speedway feels more like a blast from the past than something that is meant to showcase the future.

Electric cars make a lot of sense ... but even then, I'm not sure how to make that type of ride really fun. There's no bumping allowed, the speed is extremely slow, the handling is intentionally horrible (I think that's how they tried to make it fun, by making the steering an utter nightmare lol). They need to do something to make it either thrilling or challenging in a not-frustrating way.

So yeah. It was fine for a checklist item but I didn't really enjoy it and won't do it again as it currently exists.

Speak for yourself. Just off of the top of my head, I use Right CTRL + Numpad 0 to reset browser zoom to default/100% all the time.

There are certain essentials that airlines and travel agents / guides actually recommend that you carry on in case your checked luggage gets lost. Things like a day or two worth of clothing, some amount of toiletries, all of your medications, travel documents and other essentials that you couldn't go a day or two without in the event that there are issues with reclaiming your checked luggage.

From the description it sounds as if there is ambiguity in some cases as to what counts as a carry on item and what counts as "on your person."

A fanny pack is one such grey area. It is worn on the person, so a traveller might consider it as being part of clothing or like having stuff in your pockets, but the airlines might disagree and consider it more like a bag / carry-on item.

This depends on the years that you use to determine GenX vs Millennial, as well as the years that specific individuals were born. I was born in 1982. Wikipedia considers me a Millennial (1981 to 1996) but I definitely identify more with GenX and always considered myself to be GenX while growing up.

But let's say for the sake of argument that I am a Millennial. I was 17 in 1999. So I personally didn't grow up with Ep 1 - 3. I grew up with OG. Though late Millennials, born in '95 or '96 would have been *much* younger when Ep 1 came out. It would be fair to say that they grew up with the prequels.

My daughters, on the other hand, are GenZ. My oldest was born in 2000 (yeah we started early). They definitely grew up with Ep 1 - 6 as the movies were still coming out when they were little kids.

I'm in Canada and often have things shipped to me from the US. UPS is *by far* my least favourite shipping option. When I'm given the option, I will always pick an alternative to UPS.

My issues with them, however, are not damaged or lost packages. The issues are:

1. Customs brokerage. UPS is the only courier that I've dealt with where I will get a voice message telling me that I need to phone a 1-800 number to "authorize" to bring something through customs for me. When I phone, I speak to a person in broken english after being on hold for 30 minutes and they ask me dumb questions like "is this for business or personal?" When I get the customs bill, I usually see the standard government tax of 13% HST plus a ridiculously inflated "brokerage fee" that goes to UPS. I have had purchases where the purchase price was $100, the government charged me $13 HST on that, and the final customs bill was $50, with that $37 going to UPS as a "fuck you" fee for doing what every single other courier does "for free": I know they must pass this on in the shipping price, but if UPS were actually cheaper than the alternatives I would have an easier time accepting these brokerage fees. FedEX, DHL, USPS typically cost around the same when I'm given an option and yet they don't charge these hidden fees at the border.

2. Inconsistent service. After years of bitching about the above, UPS has started to send emails with an option to pay custom fees online. This is wonderful, when it happens. It seems like I'm playing the lottery with UPS now. Sometimes I get this. Other times I have to phone the stupid 1-800 number.

3. Inaccurate delivery estimates. When I order something using USPS or FedEX, the delivery estimates are usually pretty accurate. With UPS I can *ALWAYS* expect tracking updates saying it was delayed. Other companies seem to have figured out how to get this right, with the occasional understandable miscalculation due to an unforeseen severe weather event etc. Why does UPS suck in comparison?

4. Sparse tracking information. I don't think I need to elaborate too much on this, just that compared to other couriers, when I'm tracking a package with UPS I seem to get far fewer updates. In fairness to UPS this *could* just be due to having fewer scan points, but it still creates the perception that you're getting a shittier service when you need to wait days between any tracking updates.. and then all you're getting is the city it's in (which is certainly better than nothing ... but with FedEX you get really detailed updates like where the package is in terms of its processing through a given facility etc.).

5. Slower delivery. I'm sure this is outside of UPS's control. But there is one online store in the USA that I buy from regularly and they only ship UPS so I get to experience the headache of dealing with UPS a lot. I used to be able to get things shipped in 1 - 2 business days with UPS as an option. Lately the shipping charges have been going way up while the delivery times have gotten worse. Since I don't ship with the alternatives frequently enough I can't say if this is UPS specific or not. But it's annoying to feel like you're paying more for less.

None of the above have anything to do with the delivery drivers. The issues with UPS seem endemic to the broader organization.

My wife and I are wrestling fans, on and off, and we're not conservatives. Us enjoying it in no way discredits your observation, I just thought I'd explain why we enjoy it.

We're part time professional magicians and street performers, and "pro wrestling" has a history that is rooted in the American circus. It started out as genuine catch wrestling in the 19th century, which toured with the travelling carnivals. There would typically be a single wrestler who would challenge members of the crowd. In order to encourage people to participate, they would plant a stooge in the crowd who would challenge the wrestler and win. Over time, they observed that the crowds found the staged matches to be more entertaining than the legitimate sporting contests and it slowly evolved into the theatre that it is today.

And that's what it is: theatre. A unique form of theatre that essentially presents stunts that are meant to look like they are doing real damage while being executed as safely as possible. Kind of like a highly athletic magic trick.

So it's that carnival history, theatrical element and a unique form of illusion that appeals to us.

The main problem preventing us from keeping up with it is that there's just too much content and it's easy to get bored after a while. You watch hoping for the matches where the performers go all out and take all sorts of crazy risks for your entertainment, but when they're performing several days / week on tour those matches are rare by necessity, because they really take their toll on the performers, and so are often reserved for PPV events.

Bringing this back to WWE and Netflix, when we discovered AEW we lost all interest in WWE. It seems like WWE has tried to be more "family friendly" over the years and for us, the more spectacular the better. So it's unlikely that we will start watching RAW when it comes to Netflix.

I was saying that and agree to disagree. I don't think that cell phones are "all convenience" without any negatives what-so-ever. They add weight. They are expensive to lose and get stolen. They are often not very user-friendly (typing on a phone is difficult for me, I dislike the small screen sizes, my wife often complains that her fingers don't even register on touch screens for some reason). More of life's basic services are starting to assume that you have and / or would like to use a phone to do things like access your banking, read a menu at the restaurant, unlock hotel room doors etc. which causes you to feel like you *must* keep it with you at all times, which is inconvenient. Batteries die or the phone crashes when you need it most. They are susceptible to malware and this is all just off of the top of my head. I'm sure I could come up with more if I thought more about it.

That's not to say they are "all bad" either. I gave reasons why I like them. They have cut down on land-line interruptions and telemarketing calls dramatically and have been a godsend for me, as I suffer from misophonia. But I think it's just as naive to believe that they have presented people with no inconveniences what-so-ever.

Just about everyone I knew did that in the 90s. It was called "call screening." Before "voice mail", physical answering machines would play the message aloud while it recorded. Many people would wait to listen for the person leaving the message and if they wanted to talk to them would pick up. Then caller ID became a thing and people started screening more that way. However, before answering machines and caller ID you're correct ... people would likely pick up unless they didn't want to talk to anyone.

That also reminds me: physically unplugging the phone, or leaving it "off the hook" to stop all calls when you didn't want to be interrupted by the phone ringing was also very common.

Anyway I don't disagree with you that times have changed and we have different ways of solving these problems today thanks to mobile phones.

Even though I'm not in any way "addicted" to my phone (I often forget it at home, or don't know where I left it ... I'm not attached to it AT ALL), I found that my mental health and sanity improved substantially when mobile phones became a thing because it stopped the phone ringing when I didn't want it to (that's redundant because I never wanted it to, but disconnecting wasn't an option because of the rare family phoning for something important etc.). Mobile phones can do something that traditional phones couldn't: you can set your default ring tone to silence and then give people in your contact list custom ring tones in order to "white list" callers. That one feature of smart phones makes me like them even though I hardly use mine.

There were solutions to that problem, but one no longer exists and the other would be weird today. If the person could still be reached at home then pay phones were very commonly used. Otherwise sometimes you could call the venue to leave a message for the person you had to cancel last minute on.

Of course this is all in support of the thesis: times have changed, for better or worse (arguably both... it's all trade offs).

I want to elect representatives who favour a policy of leaving me the hell alone. So there is no "lesser" evil here for me. I know people have very strong opinions about political issues that matter to them, and for me to suggest that robo-calling (or even knocking on my door, which is just as bad to me) is somehow on par with "major issue X" will obviously not sit well with a lot of people. Just try to understand that whatever you feel most strongly about, I feel the same way about random unsolicited interruptions and, more broadly and abstractly, a government that thinks that it has a claim on my time and my life.

So if a candidate demonstrates that they're unwilling to leave me alone and stick to unobtrusive forms of getting their message out, I don't care about any other position or policy because that is the most important issue for me. Not to say I don't care about other issues or that your "major issue X or Y" is not important to me. Just that such a candidate has lost any confidence in me that they will represent my position on what government should be.

The specific statements I was responding to were the claims that "inclusiveness", within the context of E3, means that there was a "non inclusive, prior version" of E3 where the primary demographic marketed to was "socially awkward straight white males with misogynistic tendencies" and the corollary that anyone who enjoyed the cancelled elements (such as booth babes) are the aforementioned ad hominem.