Random non sequitur posts catch-all thread

Prederick wrote:

In Power Armor, I should mention. Again, as Jonman noticed, these are all concepts entirely invented by Games Workshop. In 1987.

Armor, a great novel by John Steakley, has people in exoskeletons (ie. "Power Armor") fighting aliens that are akin to huge ants. It was written in 1984. It's a long novel, but I really enjoyed it. It's really 2 related stories in one book.

-BEP

bepnewt wrote:
Prederick wrote:

In Power Armor, I should mention. Again, as Jonman noticed, these are all concepts entirely invented by Games Workshop. In 1987.

Armor, a great novel by John Steakley, has people in exoskeletons (ie. "Power Armor") fighting aliens that are akin to huge ants. It was written in 1984. It's a long novel, but I really enjoyed it. It's really 2 related stories in one book.

-BEP

Powered exoskeletons as a concept goes back to at least 1890 when one was made that used compressed gas in bags to assist movement. Power armor as we generally think of it goes back to 1959 with Heinlen's Starship Troopers, but there are earlier examples of powered suits from the 1930s that could be considered the first examples depending on how technical you want get about what qualifies as power armor vs fancy space suit. The earliest known use of the term "space marine" is from 1932.

I'm sorry to correct you, but as previously stated, again, the concept was apparently invented by Games Workshop in 1987, and everything else is ripping it off.

In other non-sequitur news, Seattle barely gets a quarter as much snow as NYC does annually. Huh. Wouldn't have thought that was the case.

All that water keeps Seattle warmer in winter than you might expect for it's latitude. I think the same is true for Vancouver.

bepnewt wrote:
Prederick wrote:

In Power Armor, I should mention. Again, as Jonman noticed, these are all concepts entirely invented by Games Workshop. In 1987.

Armor, a great novel by John Steakley, has people in exoskeletons (ie. "Power Armor") fighting aliens that are akin to huge ants. It was written in 1984. It's a long novel, but I really enjoyed it. It's really 2 related stories in one book.

-BEP

Fantastic book. That reminds me; time for a reread!

Chumpy_McChump wrote:
bepnewt wrote:
Prederick wrote:

In Power Armor, I should mention. Again, as Jonman noticed, these are all concepts entirely invented by Games Workshop. In 1987.

Armor, a great novel by John Steakley, has people in exoskeletons (ie. "Power Armor") fighting aliens that are akin to huge ants. It was written in 1984. It's a long novel, but I really enjoyed it. It's really 2 related stories in one book.

-BEP

Fantastic book. That reminds me; time for a reread!

Same. I mentioned it to my high school buddy last night in Discord and we're both going to reread it. Again. I think I read it in late '87 the first time and read it again around 5 years ago. I have a horrible memory so I can read it now and it will almost be like reading it for the first time.

-BEP

Just when I thought I was safe they are back.

Content warning disturbing images and probably a few other things if you watch the series on YouTube.

Time to learn about rude foods again.

Honestly, what is the point of a HOI? I don't think I've ever seen them mentioned in a positive light, so someone please help me. In the most ideal situation, why would people be in a HOI?

Because they have to be, if they buy the property.

Well then, what the hell do they do other than provide opportunities for tiny dictators to act like sh*theads?

The rules themselves can be quite useful; for example, don't rebuild a car on blocks in your front yard, keep your house exterior in reasonable repair, don't park illegally, etc. Of course in some areas, they can be terrible; there can be strict requirements for the height and appearance of plants, for colors of the house, all sorts of things. And those latter ones are the ones that attract the bigots and control freaks and just plain nasty nosy people.

Assuming you mean HOA rather than HOI. For some that's the entire appeal. The supposed benefit is that it let's the neighborhood deal with problem neighbors. Like the ones whose front yard looks like a junkyard from all the broken down cars they have on it. Or ones with trash all over their yard attracting all sorts of animals that mess up other yards too. It's supposed to help protect your property value too, as having a neighbor like that can affect how much you could sell your house for.

When there aren't any problem neighbors to deal with, and the HOA starts looking for problems to justify their fees, and that's where the tiny dictators come in.

They also were/are heavily used to keep the "wrong kind of families" from moving into the neighborhood, which is the real reason there are so many places with them despite no one actually liking them.

Thank you, yes, HOAs, brain no worky.

In theory, they exist to make sure a problem neighbor doesn't bring the value of the entire neighborhood down.

In practice, a bunch of the stuff is "I don't like this" this rather than "this looks so bad no one is going to want to buy my house" but the HOA is also on the hook to enforce the stuff or it's like copyright; if you don't enforce it, then you can't complain when someone does something breaking it that's _actually_ egregious.

In addition to nebulous "enforcement" stuff that usually gets (and deserves) the most side-eye, the HOA is also in charge of handling common grounds; things you would expect like neighborhood pools or the bushes and sign in front of the neighborhood, but also things you may not even think about like the neighborhood well or making sure the retention ponds aren't overgrown with moss and the spillways are kept clear. Probably less so if you're in an actual city jurisdiction, but we're not, we're only covered by the county.

My partner was HOA president for a while and it is an annoying and mostly thankless combination of dealing with minutiae that really shouldn't need any kind of executive review and "I have to learn to manage a tiny bit of town infrastructure."

A friend of mine has been staying with me for a few weeks now due to circumstances, but the sleeping arrangements so far have been terrible. We've been sharing a bed, which is bad for both of us: he's a night owl, I'm an early bird, I've never had to share a bed before, and we both snore.

I've been away quite a bit lately, which has mitigated the issue so far, but now that my traveling seems to be over, it's time to rethink the whole thing. In my sleepless night, I think I've come up with a solution that will benefit both of us. We will, however, have to move a whole bunch of furniture around. I'm hoping we can tackle that today. (I haven't changed the layout of my apartment in 3 years, I'm genuinely excited about this.)

Also: my mattress is getting close to end of life, so when the time to buy a new one comes, I'm going back to a twin bed. If I ever get a boyfriend and he wants to move in, we'll get a second twin bed.

Do you have room and $100 to buy a twin aerobed you can just blow up at night and deflate out of the way during the day?

LeapingGnome wrote:

Do you have room and $100 to buy a twin aerobed you can just blow up at night and deflate out of the way during the day?

That is totally part of my plan My problem was that I use the spare bedroom as my office. Because of my friend's sleep cycle, I have to move my desk out of the room, so I had to figure out a place to put it.

Air beds are squeaky. At least try out a futon... They roll up out of the way during the day, too. Or maybe put a futon *on* an air bed to minimize the squeaks when you shift and roll around.

A stop motion video with Lego figurines enacting the Battle of Verdun popped up in my Youtube recommendations. I have... mixed feelings about this. Arguably the most meat-grindy battle in human history as a showcase for one's stop motion mad skillz, with cutesy toys?

For some dumb reason I thought the band POD meant "Post Orgasmic Depression." I was bummed out to learn it meant Payment On Death.

Occasionally, I'll see people complaining about the "YouTube Face" many creators put in the thumbnail of their YouTube videos, in no small part because it's such an obvious, repetitive thing.

But I was unsurprised to read recently that they've done the research, and it works. Like, people can complain about it all they want, but creators do it because there is a large, measurable difference in engagement when your thumbnail has you pulling some gurning face and when it doesn't. If anything, it's the audience's fault, the creators aren't forcing it, they're just following what the audiences want.

Prederick wrote:

Occasionally, I'll see people complaining about the "YouTube Face" many creators put in the thumbnail of their YouTube videos, in no small part because it's such an obvious, repetitive thing.

But I was unsurprised to read recently that they've done the research, and it works. Like, people can complain about it all they want, but creators do it because there is a large, measurable difference in engagement when your thumbnail has you pulling some gurning face and when it doesn't. If anything, it's the audience's fault, the creators aren't forcing it, they're just following what the audiences want.

I just need to understand WHY DOES THIS f*ckING WORK.

Chairman_Mao wrote:
Prederick wrote:

Occasionally, I'll see people complaining about the "YouTube Face" many creators put in the thumbnail of their YouTube videos, in no small part because it's such an obvious, repetitive thing.

But I was unsurprised to read recently that they've done the research, and it works. Like, people can complain about it all they want, but creators do it because there is a large, measurable difference in engagement when your thumbnail has you pulling some gurning face and when it doesn't. If anything, it's the audience's fault, the creators aren't forcing it, they're just following what the audiences want.

I just need to understand WHY DOES THIS f*ckING WORK.

And who are the morons it works on?

Stengah wrote:
Chairman_Mao wrote:
Prederick wrote:

Occasionally, I'll see people complaining about the "YouTube Face" many creators put in the thumbnail of their YouTube videos, in no small part because it's such an obvious, repetitive thing.

But I was unsurprised to read recently that they've done the research, and it works. Like, people can complain about it all they want, but creators do it because there is a large, measurable difference in engagement when your thumbnail has you pulling some gurning face and when it doesn't. If anything, it's the audience's fault, the creators aren't forcing it, they're just following what the audiences want.

I just need to understand WHY DOES THIS f*ckING WORK.

And who are the morons it works on?

Have you not met people?

Jonman wrote:
Stengah wrote:
Chairman_Mao wrote:
Prederick wrote:

Occasionally, I'll see people complaining about the "YouTube Face" many creators put in the thumbnail of their YouTube videos, in no small part because it's such an obvious, repetitive thing.

But I was unsurprised to read recently that they've done the research, and it works. Like, people can complain about it all they want, but creators do it because there is a large, measurable difference in engagement when your thumbnail has you pulling some gurning face and when it doesn't. If anything, it's the audience's fault, the creators aren't forcing it, they're just following what the audiences want.

I just need to understand WHY DOES THIS f*ckING WORK.

And who are the morons it works on?

Have you not met people?

I try not to.

My guess: it's not more complicated than our priming to human expressions, aka why we tend to see Jesus in a burned toast. Among a sea of Youtube recommendations, the thumbnails with a more pronounced expression draw our instinctive attention, increasing the chance of reading the title or hovering over the thumbnail ever so slightly - thus making it incrementally likelier we will click the video as well.

dejanzie wrote:

My guess: it's not more complicated than our priming to human expressions, aka why we tend to see Jesus in a burned toast. Among a sea of Youtube recommendations, the thumbnails with a more pronounced expression draw our instinctive attention, increasing the chance of reading the title or hovering over the thumbnail ever so slightly - thus making it incrementally likelier we will click the video as well.

To add to this... I wonder if it's possible YouTube's algorithm also considers the thumbnails for recommendations and the average YouTube viewer will click anything presented "up next" - especially if it has some person making a dopey face.

Re: Genetically engineered super soldiers in power armor...

Gundam writes in 1979: "Most of the series protagonists are Newtypes, genetically advanced humans adapted for space. Newtypes have psychic abilities that enable them to sense each other across space and to utilize special mobile suits."

That is if you want to ignore Starship Troopers and Armor.
And I'll even throw in a crossover between Ironman and Captain America or even Doctor Doom.

Genesis Climber Mospeada is 1984.

I have been officially diagnosed with old-man eyes.

(A lot of medical terms sound less impressive if you know enough Greek. Presbyopia happens to be one of them.)

misplacedbravado wrote:

I have been officially diagnosed with old-man eyes.

(A lot of medical terms sound less impressive if you know enough Greek. Presbyopia happens to be one of them.)

Welcome to the club. I'm about ten years past the point I first noticed it. It only gets worse.