Not interested doesn't work. One or two weeks later it 'forgets' your preferences and someone else uploads the same content as a clip so it gets suggested too.
Googling around shows there used to be a 'Don't recommend this channel' button which would be awesome to have back.
I find it very annoying listening to a two hour debate, understanding difficult topics and then disagreeing with the speaker and being unable to block content from said speaker.
There's a bunch of one-topic people pushing their opinions out to the youtube user base and it would be great not to have to see their face in 30 different suggestions after you find yourself deeply disagreeing with their opinions or you're just done with their conversations after hearing all of their views.
The majority of these projects are created to explore an idea, they are not meant to get big. They work well for small companies or niche customer bases. When the public and investors show up with demand to be big and cash is the author supposed to turn it down?
The amount of good money thrown after bad on Kickstarter shows the money has no idea what it's investing in.
I found that company via a gdc talk by the guy who did The First Tree (the talk was called No Time, No Budget or something alike). He used them mostly to get through the hurdles of rules and guidelines. Glad I could inspire good luck with your game!
They're planning to look 'futuristic' for 2024. This thing will launch in 2020 along with Cyberpunk 2077, and will have the rough edges shaved off it for 2024 when it lands on mars. Elon's oversight role will increase and the main thrust of the project will be handed over to someone who can 'make it big' and focus on creating a glut of average items on Mars in roughly the same style, that Elon validates.
Then we will transition into a feminine, high quality style for 2028.
>No. The first speaker exaggerates the issue to make a point ("you always"), makes a roundabout reference to societal norms ("it's disgusting") instead of describing what actually annoys them (socks lying on the floor right now) and why (I don't want to see them because I personally find them disgusting, not because Felix failed to meet some outside standard).
The only reason the second speaker would say "When I see xyz on the floor" is because she has seen it before and that feeling happens every time. It's not as explicit as "you always", but it still implies a recurring and reliable event. Disgust is a societal trend at the moment that has started at 2015-2016 and will end in 2028. There is a deeper trend in the culture that will pass. But more importantly than that some people are genuinely more likely to have higher disgust sensitivity. It's a measurable trait. I am curious that the social trend comes to you as a priority in "it's disgusting", that's not a perspective I would see.
>making arguments from omniscience, like "you always", or "you are a ___ person" etc) is more likely to provoke an aggressive reaction
I agree "you always" is bad. You are burying the point by saying observations about feelings are facts. It could very well be true from the first speaker's observations Felix always does leave his socks out. I don't think 'always' and 'never' are useful categories because it gives the listener no place to go. They are totalitarian and nihilistic categories.
> it's generally pointless to expect others to behave in a certain "right" way that you can reasonably suspect they might not, and then get annoyed when they indeed don't.
I mean that's all well in good in a normal social atmosphere, but you certainly demand people to behave well when you are in a rough neighbourhood and get upset when they do not. You lock your door every night and get pissed off when thugs and criminals to break in, despite the fact it's reasonable to expect that was going to happen in a rough neighborhood.
>* It is percieved as an objective standard against which to judge all communication, rather than a guide for one's own actions.
I think the name is riffing off a political idea (unfortunately) that sought to make small infractions in social exchange and language a political tool for change. For better or worse one could draw the parallel between that political idea and this book.
>Felix, you always leave your dirty socks on the floor! It’s disgusting! Clean this up before you do anything else.
>Felix, when I see two balls of soiled socks under the coffee table, I feel irritated because I want more order in the rooms that we share in common - would you be willing to put your socks in the washing machine?
These two sentences convey the same information. The speaker finds the sock to be out of order, which is a disgust reaction in some, irritation in others. It also communicates that this event has happened more than once, though it is only implied in the second text. The only explicit difference is the demand to do it immediately.
I can understand why people perceive it to be manipulative, it implies a feelings cost to the speaker if the socks are not picked up that is described to be Felix's responsibility. The first speaker makes no comment about Felix's responsibility over his feelings, but instead simply states that the fact that socks are out makes him feel disgusted with no further feelings based implications.
The first speaker makes a clear and overbearing command (assuming this is some social interaction and not a job) to drop everything that Felix is doing and clean up. That is easy to identify and rebel against, it implies no feelings cost, no cost to the speaker, just a disagreement over actionable orders. The second speaker implies a feelings cost that she is has handed responsibility over to Felix. That can feel manipulative if you're not used to negotiating over the impact actions have on feelings. Negotiating over feelings ends up being the same as negotiating over spoken orders. A competent person must be able to deal with both speakers.
Describing words as violence fundamentally undermines the "old" (aka what I grew up with) liberal western order that was do whatever you want as long as it brings no harm. If you escalate "direct orders" to the level of "harm" you're requiring authority to govern speech to protect from harm rather than a liberal 'stick-and-stones' attitude we used to enjoy. An endless disappointment, to say the least.
Googling around shows there used to be a 'Don't recommend this channel' button which would be awesome to have back.
I find it very annoying listening to a two hour debate, understanding difficult topics and then disagreeing with the speaker and being unable to block content from said speaker.
There's a bunch of one-topic people pushing their opinions out to the youtube user base and it would be great not to have to see their face in 30 different suggestions after you find yourself deeply disagreeing with their opinions or you're just done with their conversations after hearing all of their views.