After reading the comments here, I see the problem: You judge past things by what they have become, and new things by what they are. Nothing will ever be "truly innovative" by those standards.
The automobile was for a long time just a more expensive carriage. The airplane was a pass time for the ultra rich, while anyone else got by with hot air balloons if they wanted to fly. The soviets got to space first by pointing a ballistic missile upwards.
We have CRISPR and can alter the Genes of any living organism to match our needs, but oh well, it's only used by labs right now and anyone else got by perfectly fine by selective breeding, can't call that innovative, can we?
But perhaps one of the more obvious physical examples are Blue and White LEDs (1992). Small gadgets used to always have red LEDs, maybe green ones, or an unlit 7 segment display, everything else was too expensive or too energy consuming for battery powered devices. And not only that, RGB Diodes also saw the end of pretty much all cathode-ray tubes.
You see kids, back in the olden days before white LEDs, the only way to get blue light was to throw high energy electron ray on a phosphor coating. So anything blue or white before the 90s was made with that technology, from car radios to TV screens.
I'd personally also keep an eye out what the cheap electric motor will do next. From "hoverboards", civilian drones, e-scooters and the modern e-bike, it's only a matter of time before the new use case will emerge.
I personally designed and 3D printed a case to hold 4 rechargeable batteries, so I could charge them with 5 Volts from a USB cable, instead of buying a new charger.
Fun Fact: this ruins the batteries. Gave up on designing myself and downloaded a design for a battery-adapter (plastic shell + 1 screw that makes small battery fit in big devices). My stockpile of small batteries then lasted me 2 months before I finally bought a charger and new rechargeables.
I disagree. I only see one "thing" here, and that's "shooting as a sport". I also didn't consider quail and deer hunting separately, so I don't know why you wasted so much time writing all the different forms down: to an outsider, the are the same in this context. Maybe 2, the sports that arose from hunting and the ones that arose from the military, the latter often drawing human outlines on their targets which just adds to my point.
And unfortunately, I already was at such competition as a visitor. It's a sport like any other, your enjoyment largely depends on the people there, and guns attract the kind I want nothing to do with.
I would have considered this the popular opinion, but it seems I'm the odd one out. The comments here defending it are hard to read.
Like, Farmers and Hunters: You know you are like 8% of the population at most, right? Killing animals should have maybe been mentioned as an alternative use for guns, sure, but come on: most gun nuts, as most people in general, are city folk. They buy a gun to shoot or threaten to shoot people exclusively.
Will keep an eye on this, but there is nothing too local here (No, I can't host something myself). Given how the specification says there should be a location and radius per instance, some admins are really slacking on putting that info in the description.
I imagine few people create garbage multiple times a day while outside. The people who do only litter if they can't be bothered to find a bin, so they probably rarely visit that particular place. So smokers, teenagers and truckers just have more opportunities to litter, leaving butts, wrappers and cans.
And once you're used to littering when there's no bin, you do it when there are bins as well.
Child pickiness and Brassicus-Cultivar appreciation aside, I have another:
There were those weird times when things just wouldn't taste right. ~10 years ago I disliked cherries for tasting somewhat like alcohol, and more recently Orange juice tasted soapy to me for a time. Both of these things have since gone away and I'm back to eating just about anything.
Oh, you mean that video, about blind boxes and gachapon.
Seen that one as well, really absurd to see that channel promote "healing your inner child", by buying into something that feels like an amalgam of lootboxes, that ruined online games, and Funko-pops, which cannibalised physical game stores. I read through the comments many times to maybe understand, but it seems few people actually care about the gambling addicts there as well.
I've never played any of those games myself, but here's what I have gathered from a video essay:
You just begin to play it somehow, you get introduced to the Gacha mechanics, and then it's one of 2 ways: Either you spend a lot of money in the game because they are literally designed like Casinos to fuel your gambling addiction, like clouding your judgement how much a round of gambling is actually worth with many in game currencies.
Or you spend time in the game to grind premium resources, and your brain rewards you for it with the thought "at least I'm not spending money", not realizing that the house developer also wins if you do that. An example i giving rewards for players who write strategy guides, something they otherwise would have to pay real money to a developer for.
We really have to hate more on those regulators who failed to protect gambling addicts from candy crush on crack.
Online subscription models, gacha and AAAA price tag games.
Not everyone wants to be a cybercriminal, god knows I'm one of them, but almost every person already has a backlog of games, an old classic that they want to experience again or community favourite that has gotten a lot of mods. Those are all free. And even if you want to spend money on something, why would you spend it on this year's hyped up game when last year's is still just as playable and at a discount?
That being said, I did buy Balatro full price, so I ought to know the answer.
Tudsamfa @ Tudsamfa @lemmy.world Posts 7Comments 228Joined 1 yr. ago
After reading the comments here, I see the problem: You judge past things by what they have become, and new things by what they are. Nothing will ever be "truly innovative" by those standards.
The automobile was for a long time just a more expensive carriage. The airplane was a pass time for the ultra rich, while anyone else got by with hot air balloons if they wanted to fly. The soviets got to space first by pointing a ballistic missile upwards.
We have CRISPR and can alter the Genes of any living organism to match our needs, but oh well, it's only used by labs right now and anyone else got by perfectly fine by selective breeding, can't call that innovative, can we?