If they call to 'Ask what they can do to keep you' or 'Find out how they can do better' just hang up. They have no decency, and nothing they say should sway you to give your money to companies that treat you like garbage
Don't hang up, tell them. Tell them "I'm switching because you jacked up prices beyond what's reasonable." If they offer to lower prices, say "no, it's too late. I don't want to be with a company that takes advantage of loyal customers in the first place."
I think what @adingbatponder@fosstodon.org is trying to do is to reference the idea that corporations love to "socialise the costs, privatise the profits".
wtaf? My last place had an electric hot water heater. I moved in there over 10 years ago, and it was already old by then. I think it was resistive, not heat pump, but not 100% sure on that. Never had gas. What were those dudes smoking?
They're always looking for type-O, because O is the most able to donate. O- especially, which is the universal donor, though even O+ is great because it can donate to everyone with any positive type, which IIRC is like 80% of people. Other types are also important to donate because it lets them use the more specific blood type when possible, leaving the O-type blood for emergencies where determining blood type isn't feasible.
I remember spending hours tinkering with Linux in my bedroom as a kid
I feel like the environment of subject-specific forums and IRC chat that Millennial geeks grew up with is very different from the centralised, generic, algorithm-driven social media that Gen Z grew up with, and non-geeky Millennials, Gen X, and Boomers adopted in the late aughts & '10s. That was really the best of what social media could do, with far fewer of the unhealthy downsides.
Late last year Australia passed a ban for the use of social media of under-16s. In principle I think this is a really good idea.
Unfortunately they rushed it through without any thought as to how it would actually work in terms of age verification. It's now been 6 months, which means we're 6 months away from when it's supposed to come into effect, and we still don't have any idea how it's actually supposed to work. But the principle behind it: the idea that social media is actually really not healthy for our brains, especially at a young and vulnerable age, is a sound one. And there's only more and more research coming out to support that.
Sometimes assembling the group in session 0 is what’s right for the story, and sometimes it really, really isn’t. Think about how many movies literally have “Assembling the team” as almost their entire plot. The Avengers hangs two hours of non-stop action on “We need to put a party together.”
Oh, that reminds me of a 4th way campaigns can start (in addition to the 3 I said in a different reply) that I've been in before and quite enjoyed—though wouldn't want to be overused. The MCU method. Where each player individually gets a 1 session (maybe 2 at most) solo session introducing them and getting them to the right place to start the campaign.
I strongly disagree. The first two are substantively the same, I agree. But the third is a wholly separate category. I see 3 basic categories we're talking about here: you choose to work together at the start; you know each other already; you're forced into working together by circumstances. The key difference between the 1st and the 3rd is that choice. "We have the same patron" is still a choice to work for that patron, and gives room for someone to say "nah, I'm not working with these people". When the circumstances themselves directly force you to work together, there's no ability to turn around and say "I'm going my own way". Being kidnapped and having brain slugs put in your head is one way. Everyone arriving in the same town at the time the town is unexpectedly invaded is another one I've been in as a player.
The other key thing about in media res is that you don't have that "inevitable round of introductions that feels like that time at the start of school when everyone had to stand up to say their name and one interesting fact about them". You're thrown into doing things before there's any chance for that. You get to know each other not beforehand, as in case 2, but as the adventure is going.
To be clear, I'm pointing to BG3 as an example that I've only very recently (the last two–four weeks) started, and which serves as a good well-known example of something that demonstrates a good example of something I already know works well. It's not a game that made me realise I completely new way of doing things. In media res will require players be cooperative enough to care to act, but it doesn't require they trust each other or know each other immediately. It definitely doesn't require pre-written specifically-designed characters.
There are options besides "strangers meet in a tavern and awkwardly introduce themselves" and pre-made perfectly-tailored party. I'm a fan of starting in media res, with the characters all in a location for their own reasons, when shit happens that forces them to act as a group. I've just recently started the video game Baldur's Gate 3, and it's not a bad example of what I mean.
Might be interesting, but I'm not taking conspiracy theories (to be clear: this is a conspiracy theory. Even if it's true, it's a theory about a conspiracy.) from the Nazi blogging website seriously.
Strongly disagree. Nothing wrong with doing that, but nothing wrong with having them meet in session 1 too, as long as you have built characters who will be willing to go along with the GM's hooks.
And even that part is flexible, depending on the nature of the hook. If the hook is "you see an ad look for rat exterminators", then you better have a character who wants to be an adventurer and will cooperate with other would-be adventurers. If the hook is "you're prisoners being ordered to go explore this dungeon by order of the vizier", there's room for slightly less cooperative PCs, as long as you PC is cooperative enough to go along with that order, even if (at first) reluctantly.
Omg thanks for linking that thread. The amount of removed and deleted content on Lemmy is so frustrating. I hate the fact that removed or deleted posts also completely nuke all the comments on it.
Reddit's approach is so much better in this respect. A removed post removed the OP's text, but if it's a link post the link remains, and all the comments remain.
That was my exact response, too. Apparently he's the NZ PM and leader of the conservative National Party, in coalition with the far-right libertarian ACT and the far-right populist NZ First.
Oh huh. The message is in French, so I guess they're banned from their own instance? I feel like the "banned" message should make it clear whether it's a community ban, a ban from my instance, or a ban from their instance.
Zagorath @ Zagorath @aussie.zone Posts 162Comments 3,590Joined 2 yr. ago
Don't hang up, tell them. Tell them "I'm switching because you jacked up prices beyond what's reasonable." If they offer to lower prices, say "no, it's too late. I don't want to be with a company that takes advantage of loyal customers in the first place."