50% increase in groceries in less than 4 years is extremely alarming, bro. That doesn't happen anywhere in the world without it becoming the national point of discussion.

You're not wrong in that. I was just arguing against the "pajeet IT" stereotype. I'm sure there must be plenty of competence for them to be so prominent in tech.

Isn't everyone becoming poor extremely quickly, then? Why aren't there riots?

Wait... isn't that like 18% inflation over 4 years?

That's 4.5% per year! Fuck. Most people live paycheck to paycheck. What do you even do when your purchasing power lessens by almost 20%? How are people surviving?

Pedantic indeed.

The path of redemption that Christ provided is what Santa meant: it was implied. He is wrong, of course, since the redemption is but the second greatest gift.

The actual greatest of God's gifts is life itself, since it's the difference between existing and not.

wants the H1B program to allow in even more Indians. Which is about as far from “high skill” immigration [...] as one can get

Their position makes sense if you're wrong. Maybe the best Indians are the most benefit/cost employees a USA tech company can have. Maybe the stereotypes don't apply to the cream of the crop.

One is a good deed, the other makes the world worse.

I'm mistrustful of Christian grifters.

If they do, that means compelled speech is fine in Canada

There's already precedent for that. No new ground here.

I'm talking about nature.

The word migration doesn't necessarily imply impermanence.

Their obsession with the hijinks the medieval church

Please don't perpetuate unfounded stereotypes.

Again, no.

That's not social conditioning, it's physical conditions.

People get seasick playing VR until they get used to it. People get sick at sea until they get used to it. Getting sick because one isn't used to higher framerates is no argument for saying that lower framerates are objectively superior.

That being said, my original point was that film grain is an objective imperfection of a hypothetical perfect picture. There really is no good reason to say that film is better than digital.

The opposite. People have been conditioned to preferring lower framerates.

Framerates have the same immutable characteristics as musical chords

I don't think so. I think it's just cultural.

those that have seen 60 fps film footage knows it utterly destroys that movie magic feel. It turns movies into gaudy soap opera effect garbage

That's just current habit and preconceptions. If you got used to 60 fps you'd hate less than that.

intangible quality to it that I've never experienced with digital movies.

Perhaps post-processing skills aren't up to par, but that can and should get better with time.

But you're attributing things to film that aren't intrinsic to film.

Well, nobody wants to accept the idea that something has been taken out of them that can't be made whole, especially when it doesn't appear to be consequential.

I wouldn't do it to my children, but I also don't think it matters much. Arguments center around sensitivity, but that's never been an issue.

Because it's an evil thing to do?

Ultimate evil means willing the end of all things. Less reproduction is a natural focus point.

The only reason not to film digital is if you enjoy grain, which is objectively an imperfection.

It's also heavily implied that they take sexual liberties with human women.

What the fuck? That wasn't implied at all. It's also not clear that they faked the meteor: that's just the MC hypothesizing.

It seems to me to be a fully self aware takedown of leftism in it's entirety

It doesn't seem political at all to me.

When you cost more than you provide to the state, your death becomes financially convenient.

The solution is for new companies never to enter the shareholder market.

If it's China, it can surely only be a multiplayer microfest.