Jimmycrackcrack

joined 2 years ago
[–] Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 hours ago

It sounds a lot like they took something their psychologist said, in context, misremembered the exact wording and intended meaning, selectively reconstructed it, disregarded the original context and then applied it universally to all people in all situations instead of specifically for her in her particular circumstances as part of a sentence deeply embedded in a lot of conversation that took place before and after to try and help her understand why people act certain ways.

[–] Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 week ago

Flubber 1997 Not because it was such a memorably great trailer, but just because it was so misleading. I don't want to watch that shitty movie all over again just to verify my claims but what I recall was, there were entire scenes or shots in the trailer that weren't in the movie at all, and they were kind of the best bits. I definitely expected a lot more crazy hijinks and time spent in the flying car with sentient mischievous green goo then what I remember ending up with. The whole flubber material having some will of its own too I seem to recall was a much less prominent aspect of the movie than was implied, it seemed to be just goo most of the time. So much screen time was spent worrying about the Professor's marriage and conflict with the University faculty, which was so boring for a kid especially when they marketed it so heavily and I was given to expect so different. Don't know if I'd have liked the 60's version better, from what I read and see in the trailer it does look like pretty much the same movie so likely suffered the same issues.

[–] Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 week ago

If one really dug through my history before this comment and probably in to the future when I've long forgotten about it you'd probably find examples of me not practicing what I'm about to preach but, to an extent no one really is a loser because the term is subjective and meaningless in any practical sense. People might do "loser" things sometimes or even constantly, but still have capacity for change or posess redeeming factors that make them worth time and energy to at least someone. The question is whether they're worth your time and energy, and whether you have reason to want them to redeem themselves in your eyes.

If your father had been a much nicer spoken man, and also stayed with your mother, but still had the terrible money management and bad financial situation would you still feel inclined to call him a loser? Someone with no attachment to him and whose personal criteria for casting someone in to that bucket centres around material wealth might, but his own children maybe less so. As it happens he has been bad with money, has made a lot of decisions you disapprove of and persists in interacting with you in a reprehensible manner so it's entirely understandable why you might not like him very much or feel much reason to indulge him or invest in a relationship with him. To me that's enough, his "loserdom" status is immaterial, in fact it's a distraction, because if you ever DID change your mind and wanted to attempt to repair the relationship, such value judgements might be hard to cast aside once they're allowed to calcify and such a change of mind won't be about his worth based on some extrinsic, arbitrary label but instead about what he is and continues to be to you.

[–] Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago

It's an interesting question though because I guess if the files being zipped are already nearly or maximally compressed then I'd assume that the zip of all those files actually was in some extremely tiny negligible way, actually slightly larger than those files on their own.

1
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml to c/degoogle@lemmy.ml
 

I actually really liked the thing, hence it sticking around these 11 years since I got it. One thing I especially liked about it was that it initially just did the one thing. I went to a website or sometimes used an app, either in my phone or computer and pressed a button and whatever still image or video I'd been looking at on that source device, showed up on the TV I plugged the Chromecast in to.

Technically it still works, but it's getting harder and harder to do this simple task. It's been whinging about me not being signed in if I use it with YouTube and for an outrageously long time displays some kind of media control overlay that takes up a massive portion of the screen. That's what the phone or computer screen is for and the Chromecast gen1, not having been designed for this, is way too slow to do it properly so it struggles. It's increasingly difficult to actually get the cast button to appear even on Chrome on desktop, and there's some confusing shit to do with "web apps" on just about every website with media involved that I see no reason to indulge when the media plays without them anyway, but I assume that refusal has something to do with the damn thing not working anymore. Basically google have all but killed this device.

I see those Roku things as an alternative but that seems to be a full media player solution intended to essentially function as a smart tv in a removable stick. I basically just want a wireless HDMI input receiver that will work with web browsers or any media streaming service/app just like the Chromecast USED TO! Do they exist?

I want to be able to, without hassle, decide on a whim to send whatever media I'm looking at on a device, to the tv screen wirelessly.