I regret to say I've not discovered anything which fits the bill better than your discovery, although, in the interest of full disclosure, I gotta admit that I got immediately sidetracked because your answer rattled a memory loose from the cobwebs of my mind. Devoid of any context, I saw an image from one of those hidden picture books and I had to track it down. I Spy: Spooky Mansion, if you're curious. I will have to investigate the "genre" question tomorrow.

Is there terminology for this sort of tableaux style image, where there's lots of activity and little visual gags thrown in all over the place that only reveal themselves if you're paying attention to the individuals rather than the whole? I figure someone's gotta have a name for it. Whether it's referring to Hieronymus Bosch's The Last Judgment or a Where's Waldo book, it's clearly an art trope that has been around a minute.

I imagine it's something of a difference in expected audience behavior. I would think that, for most people, looking at a few of the top comments and their replies is all the engagement with a post they want to have. So, a voting system facilitates that process by highlighting a few items the hive mind likes, and leaving the rest in relative obscurity. Whereas forum style posting sort of assumes that everyone present in a thread is in conversation with one another, hence chronological organization.

I am highly skeptical that anyone expected this to make it's budget back. Coppola financed it himself, and, apparently, marketed it himself. Honestly, were I in his position, I'd throw anyone seeking to provide "more oversight" off of my movie set. Not to say that that makes for better movies or anything, but when the artist provides the money, they get to oversee themselves for better or worse.

I see this response with some degree of frequency here on Lemmy (and Reddit before) when a movie/game bombs, or a show is cancelled, and I have to wonder how valid it is. Like, I would suspect that the population that uses Lemmy regularly and the population that takes steps to remove corporate advertising from their lives form an essentially circular Venn diagram.

At a certain point, easy though it is to blame marketers for not getting the word out, folks need to acknowledge the fact that, when advertisers come knocking at their door, they're turning off the porch light and closing the blinds.

Which is not to imply that people have anything approaching an obligation to open themselves up to advertising. I'm just saying that blaming a lack of ads while running an ad blocker seems disingenuous.

For the record, OP, not an attack on you or anything, just voicing some thoughts that have been percolating since reading about a couple high profile flops and cancellations this summer.

Oh it's for sure meant to be a little humorous in its absurdity, but once I found out about the daughter-wife clones, I made a myself a lil quick save for prophecy reasons and then set about exploring an alternate timeline lol.

Gives me Bill Watterson vibes, like a previously unseen Spaceman Spiff comic from Calvin and Hobbes. Love it.

Continue to be thankful. I made some boneheaded choices in college which resulted in my throwing away a full ride, and I left school with like 80k in debt. Thankfully, I am much more fiscally responsible than I was academically responsible, and I managed to pay that off over the course of like 7 years (aided in no small part by the forbearance periods Biden forced through during COVID). Which is good, because more boneheaded choices were made which resulted in a significant change to my financial situation. If I were still making payments at this juncture, I would be in a position where I'd be moving back into mom's basement just to make ends meet.

Not that there is anything inherently shameful in that (it's fucking hard out here, and if that's a resource that you have available, it should not be turned away simply because of pride), but it does cause me to wake every morning pleased I didn't listen to any "financial gurus" out there who talk about shit like "good debt".

Yes, and if my grandma had wheels...

That text is what immediately sprang to mind for me as well. Whatever, Divayth Fyr had it coming.

Perhaps. But expanding ones borders through conquest also seems medieval, and guided missiles are poor tools for holding territory, so the classics still have a role to play.

It reminds me a little bit of what they tried to do with Year of the Black Rainbow, i.e. tap into the heavier side of metal, which was also a sound I didn't feel like meshed with their style all that well. This track seems a little more hardcore punk than metal, which makes sense when I think about some of the stuff on their earliest records, but it still doesn't jive with me. Could work in the context of an album though.

As neat and tidy as your explanation is, I think you are vastly oversimplifying the concept.

You say the moon is real because you can see it, and you can prove it's there by telling other people to just go look at it. Alrighty then, I've seen bigfoot. In fact, lots of people say they've seen bigfoot. Therefore he must exist too, right? The photos "prove" his existence just as much as you pointing to the sky saying the moon exists cause there it is.

Now, I realize that there's probably some degree of hyperbole in your statement, so I'll walk this back a little. If the defining metric of your separation between these concepts is whether the hypothesis can be proven through experimentation, that's all well and good. However, I would argue that, in 99.9% of cases, it's still a belief statement. Let's continue with the moon example, but, rather than "seeing is knowing", let's apply the same standard that you applied to God. So, you "know" the moon exists, not just because you can see it, but because it's existence can be empirically proven through experimentation. What sort of experiments would you conduct to do that, exactly? Have you done those experiments? Or, like the rest of the rational world, do you accept that scientists have done those experiments already and decided, yup, moon's there? Cause, if you're taking someone else's word for it, do you personally "know" what they are saying is true, or do you believe them based upon their credentials, the credentials of those who support the argument, and your own personal beliefs/knowledge?

As another example, let's imagine for a sec we're philosophers/scientists of the ancient world. I have a theory that the heavier something is, the faster it will fall. You may know where I'm going with this if you remember your elementary school science classes. I believe in the power of experimental evidence, and so, to test my theory, I climb to the top of the Acropolis and drop a feather and a rock. The feather falls much more slowly than the rock. Eureka, I've proved my theory and therefore I now KNOW that an object's weight affects its fall.

Now, anyone not born in 850 BC Athens in this thread will point out that it's a flawed experiment, since I'm not controlling for air resistance, and if you conducted the same experiment in a vacuum chamber, both objects would fall at the the same rate. However, the technology to test my hypothesis with all of the salient variables controlled did not exist at that time. So, even though it's now widely known that my experiment was flawed, it wouldn't have been at the time, and I would have the data to back up my theory. I could simply say try it yourself, it's a self-evident fact.

Finally, your statement about subjectivity of definition being an obstacle to functional language is so alarmist as to border on ridiculous. If this question were "how do you personally define the distinction between 'yes' and 'no'", then sure I can get on board a little bit more with your point. However this is much more like 'twilight' vs 'dusk'. Crack open a dictionary and you'll find that there is a stark, objective distinction between those terms, much as you pointed out that belief and knowledge have very different definitions. For the record, since I had to look it up to ensure I wasn't telling tales here, sunset is the moment the sun finishes crossing the horizon, twilight is the period between sunset and dusk when light is still in the sky but the sun is not, and dusk is the moment the sun is 18 degrees below the horizon. So, I know that these are unique terms with specific, mutually exclusive definitions. But let me tell you something, I believe that if I randomly substituted one term for another based purely on my personal whimsy, people are gonna get what I mean regardless.

I suppose I cling to the old adage that a bad game is bad forever, while a delayed game may some day be good. It's less true today than when Miyamoto said it (No Man's Sky being the commonly cited example of a game which was able to turn its radioactive launch into a fairly positive experience), but I still believe it's more accurate than not. I'm picking on a straw man here, but I wonder how many of those "gamers" bemoaning Halo's long absence also look down their noses at the yearly release mill of sports games. Far as I'm concerned, new games in a franchise should come when the creators feel they have something new to showcase. A new mechanic, new engine, a new plot, whatever. Obviously, the games industry at large is perfectly happy to ok boomer me, and I'm perfectly happy to keep mining through my backlog of games which manage to be fun without live updates.

This article, or corpo propaganda depending on your cynicism, asserts as fact that "gamers" are clamoring at the gates, screaming about the length of time between installments in franchises. That rings hollow to me. If anything, it seems like franchise fatigue is a much more common ailment. However, Lemmy is the entirety of my social media presence, so I am sure I'm not tuned in to the wider landscape.

Fwiw, some states require employers to compensate employees at their regular wage while serving on a jury. Probably not relevant to you in particular, since I think only 10 do (plus DC), but it's worth checking out if you're unsure. Especially since some of the states that do have such provisions may not be the ones you might expect. Alabama and (parts of) Florida come to mind.

Furthermore, in states where such compensation is not compelled by law, employers are free to develop their own policies, which may include full compensation for jury duty or other mandatory court summons (e.g. being a witness). I'm sure that that is not common, per se, but it bears investigation if you find yourself in that situation. Either by contacting your HR department, or reading the policies yourself, depending on the competency or sliminess of your HR contacts.

All good! You were in the ballpark, certainly. I read CAD, but not Penny Arcade, and I was there when Loss was uploaded, so the distinction is clear to me.

Wrong webcomic. Ctrl + Alt + Del is the name.

So it goes.