Sergio @ Sergio @slrpnk.net

Hi, I'm also Terencio on mastodon.social and Sergio on lemmy.world.

---

Read more

Posts

8

Comments

824

Joined

10 mo. ago

I'd be tempted to argue that it hits what it was aiming for. It's meant to be a cheap raunchy Porky's rip-off, and it succeeds. I suspect Cruise does a good job in it - the year before he did Taps, and the year after he did All the Right Moves.

Losin' It is a 1982 comedy film directed by Curtis Hanson, and starring Tom Cruise, Shelley Long, Jackie Earle Haley and John Stockwell. The film follows four teenagers trying to lose their virginity. It was filmed largely in Calexico, California.

...

The film received negative reviews from critics. On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, 18% of 11 critics' reviews are positive, with an average rating of 4.3/10.[3] Metacritic, which uses a weighted average, assigned the film a score of 51 out of 100, based on 4 critics, indicating "mixed or average" reviews.

Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert criticized the film on their TV program At the Movies. Siskel called it "dreadful" and "predictable."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Losin%27_It

Subbed! gl hf

Well, I was saying you don't have to be a mod. If we look at examples beyond "alt" communities, !superbowl@lemmy.world 's main poster isn't a mod. Likewise, !bmoviebonanza@lemmy.world 's most frequent poster isn't a mod either.

It doesn't have to be hard work. Just pick a couple communities and start engaging at the level you're comfortable with.

I've noticed it goes in phases:

• dormant community. maybe occasional posts.
• one person posting regularly. maybe they're a mod, maybe not. some upvotes, occasional discussion.
• 2-3 people posting regularly. others post occasionally. some upvotes, occasional discussion.
• several regular posters, several others post occasionally. regularly upvoted posts, frequent discussions

!gothindustrial@lemmy.world is currently in phase 3 but it was in phases 1 and 2 for a while. !cyberpunk@lemmy.zip is bouncing between phases 1 and 2. !thrashmetal@lemmy.world is in phase 3. Punk is interesting bc it has both !punk_rock@lemmy.ca and !punk@lemmy.world. Ideally they'd join forces on !punk_rock@lemmy.ca and then they'd be in phase 2 or 3. !metal@lemmy.world is pretty much at phase 4, tho it's sometimes lacking in discussions.

Anyway, I recommend picking one of those communities and posting/discussing, you don't have to be a mod to help grow them.

!gothindustrial@lemmy.world just relaunched recently, previously it was only music-focused but now we welcome any related discussion. though we're still mostly just posting music links, lel.

OK, new reality show: Drunken Sleepwalk Dorm.

Yo, same!

• Breakfast = leftovers, something hearty
• cereal and milk = dessert any time of day

The Great Male Renunciation (French: Grande Renonciation masculine) is the historical phenomenon at the end of the 18th century in which wealthy men of the Western world stopped using bright colours, elaborate shapes and variety in their dress, which were left to women's clothing. Instead, men concentrated on minute differences of cut, and the quality of the plain cloth.[1]

Coined by British psychologist John Flügel in 1930, it is considered a major turning point in the history of clothing in which the men relinquished their claim to adornment and beauty.[2] Flügel asserted that men "abandoned their claim to be considered beautiful" and "henceforth aimed at being only useful".[3] The Great Renunciation encouraged the establishment of the suit's monopoly on male dress codes at the beginning of the 19th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Male_Renunciation

"No fingerprints? So that means..."

"That's right. We've been hit by- We've been struck by-"

(in unison) "A smooth criminal."

Obviously fake, no mullet.

We have the same bowls. I was like: hey whatcha doing with our bowls.

ikr I feel really fulfilled unloading the dishwasher.

whenever I feel overwhelmed, I do some simple task, it's more centering than meditation.

Agreed, for any non-trivial bug I just start dumping text into a word file to track what I'm doing. Like: error messages, values of variables at key places, libraries used, URLs of documentation and background reading and stackoverflow pages looked at, test fixes and their effects, etc. Then if someone asks me wtf I've been doing all day I can easily show them. Also, if I have the same problem a couple months later I can remind myself.

Wikipedia/mediawiki

On what basis comes the conclusion that there is no architect behind it?

That's a great point - if there are divine beings, they wouldn't necessarily build the universe using a bunch of elves or something -- better to spark a Big Bang with the right starting conditions and let everything develop from there. I think it's more correct to say that evolution and modern physical cosmology provide an explanation of how and why the universe exists without necessarily needing divine intervention.

waiting that long sounds worse the older you get.

in 10 years the worst of the boomers in power today will be dead.

I remember thinking this about the WW2 generation back in the 90s. The result:

I’ll go farther and say that its wrong.

Well, it's debatable but I think it comes down to defining your terms.

• "Evolution is blind" suggests no guidance at all, and as you say there is randomness, but an important part of the evolutionary process is survival and propagation which are guided by the environment. so arguably evolution is NOT blind.
• However the evolutionary process is reactive and does not involve long-term planning so you could argue that "blind" means "looking ahead, considering more than what you can immediately sense." so arguably evolution IS blind.

Either perspective agrees that there is no "Grand Architect" and/or "God's Plan" which I think is the general point being made. But it's just a little distracting.

Romans are assholes.

First time I've heard this. People in Rome are like people in NYC: busy with their own lives, unwilling to take any BS, but generally helpful if you really need it.