JohnnyEnzyme @ JohnnyEnzyme @lemm.ee

Posts

16

Comments

367

Joined

2 yr. ago

and a proper pizza oven. The oven a recipe can’t help with

Fortunately, it sounds like pizza steels do a really impressive job replicating a good oven.

Oi, matey. Seen this?

https://lemm.ee/u/remotelove@lemmy.ca

So if your primary goal is to show that these Heathcliff strips don't actually need Heathcliff to work, do you feel it cheating to add the fumes in order to keep the sense of the joke?

For the record, I find the series interesting either way.

Wow, what a great mini-essay. I'd love to see it posted such that more ST fans could enjoy it.

He is a different person at the end of the movie than he was at the beginning (or throughout the TV show). Less cocky, more aware of the consequences of his actions, because it literally cost him his best friend.

Hmm, the idea of 'cockiness' is an interesting one that seems to meet the eye test, but I'm not sure I really agree with. That is-- altho he could indeed bluff, boast and 'exert his personality' here and there in the series, it felt to me like there was almost always a stone-cold, calculating nature behind it.

TWOK has what’s arguably Shatner’s finest performance - certainly in Star Trek, maybe ever.

I'm tempted to agree, altho reading something like Shatner's Toupee, I was impressed by how many strong performances he turned in over the years. For example, I'd never heard of Incubus nor The Defender before, but that amazing blog introduced those and many other interesting acting he'd done.

I also feel that in the series proper, Shatner showed an amazing versatility in terms of ways to react and play various scenes, to the extent that I can't imagine how much more dull the show would have been with Jeffrey Hunter as lead. So I think it's fair to say that while his TWOK performance was great, he also turned in a load of other great performances as Kirk and other characters. Which was 'finest?' I suspect that's a pretty monster and/or nebulous debate, really.

Welp, I started commenting on a side note, and decided to just throw it all into a separate post. It's about how I view the rise and fall of modern Heathcliff. Cheers!

https://lemm.ee/post/4582126

@glimse@lemmy.world

Heathcliff is at least amusingly gonzo & surreal, sometimes. Under the nephew, Gallagher, I guess it kind of peaked somewhere in the twenty-teens before recycling ideas.

Meanwhile, I think I laughed maybe once or twice at a Garfield cartoon, over the course of decades.

I hit the FV with Chrome/FF, so I guess I'm out of luck with that. Still, hiding content is such a powerful feature that I reckon it will be implemented soon enough.

It certainly wouldn't hurt if the RES devs got busy on Lemmy.

Well, not any one /random/ person, but you, the user! I.e., right now, it all depends on what posts YOU clicked on yourself. (if you clicked on them even once, now they're forever disappeared under that particular setting, see)

Now, this might be helpful when browsing a feed or stream, but when it comes to looking at single instances, can be very unhelpful*.

For example (as said above)-- I have a tiny community (mostly of my own work), and because of that setting, can't even see what the posts are, now.

That is-- unless I turn the setting OFF, I can see zero* content in my very own community, i.e. the one that I started. And of course, it messes up other instances which are merely in my 'favorite' streams. When I browse to them specifically in order to see what their latest content is, anything I viewed before then is now "missing."

It winds up being a terrible feature unless you purely view by stream, in other words.

@oatmilkmaid@evistre@possumpat.io

Actually it turned out to be a disaster. Unfortunately, the option in question has no discretion, and will hide posts from the overview of any instance at all. For example, I recently became unable to view posts in my own instance, and struggled for days trying to figure out what the issue was. Finally I thought back to this convo, reversed the setting, and now the problem is solved.

Therefore, when the Lemmy code is able to tag individual posts & comments as hidden, I reckon they ought to kill that option in user settings, as it can cause way more trouble than its worth IME.

@maegul@lemmy.ml

Well, we're way, way over the overpopulation limit, with too much environmental destruction in our wake, so I guess it's all pretty academic at this point.

Also, I certainly don't find that a high-tech, capitalistic civilisation is required to maintain a society with high happiness & quality of life. We already know due to multiple encounters with existing primitive peoples around the world that people can be perfectly happy, content and occupied with far more primitive tech, without money.

That said, primitive societies can also be quite violent, stressful affairs, too.

i'm pretty sure a shared tradition and morality handled most of what we might call 'law.' as for taxes, that's something that works with lucre. the vast majority of human history did not seem to function with lucre.

as for a threshold of 1000 individuals, i would tend to think most societies splintered in to smaller ones the larger they grew, as is natural.

a lot of that is speculative of course, but generally seems supported by the history and clues we do have. meanwhile, what i know for sure is that this mega-society is headed for a massive collapse, and is certainly not self-sustaining, nor at equilibrium with nature. cheers.

Not trying to quibble or be pedantic, but I see it as a complex subject. Laws & taxes are extremely recent practices, while societies were probably around long before modern man came along, ~300kya.

I would also think some of those societies functioned nicely indeed, and were arguably an improvement over what we have now.

Latish reply, but how do you make yours? Do you do the 'restaurant' steps of using water & freezing to get the starch out?

Me, I just slice up baking potatoes and pop them in my air fryer for a while, turning and re-basting with oil a few times. Not restaurant grade, but good enough.

Thanks for that. I was an idiot, fixating on the word "hide" for some reason.

Thanks; I understand. My problem with "New" is that it doesn't necessarily mean there's activity yet. Sometimes I really would like to stay with "Active" and just hide stuff I have no interest in.

There’s a setting in your Lemmy profile to hide read posts. It’s a server side setting so it’ll propagate to any apps.

Not totally sure I understand. I don't use apps, but browser, and don't see any such setting in my profile toggles.