The Fly (1986).

I watched it only once, in the 90s, and I’ve never been able to watch it again since. At the same time, I think it’s an excellent film.

The seemingly light and even humorous beginning of the film is bit by bit replaced by the sheer horror of the gradual loss of humanity and the final transformation into a monster. Simultaneously, in my perception, a glimmer of hope for a good ending is created, only to be ruthlessly destroyed at the very end. Even the music from this film feels overwhelming to me.

I highly recommend it, but you should never watch it ;)

• Young Einstein (1988)
• Brain Donors (1992)
• Death Machine (1994)

Thanks for the kind words :) I completely don’t understand such childish behaviours, completely out of step with the current world full of actual moral challenges, rather than justifications for becoming agitated over trivial matters because someone said something they don’t like. And yes, I ignore such people. I have enough years under my belt and enough self-awareness not to bother with them. And you are absolutely right that some people, because of being pointed at by the mob for expressing their emotions (especially in a blunt manner), may start to feel guilt and doubt whether what they feel is “correct” and “healthy”. This takes away the arena for clashing viewpoints and is socially harmful. I have a habit of expressing myself in a blunt and graphic way, and I have no intention of changing that. Besides, acting otherwise, I simply wouldn’t survive in adult life and at work.

@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world , @SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world

Dear armchair psychologists. Where exactly did I write that I killed any animal or in any way violated its bodily integrity?

I simply am not afraid of my emotions, I don’t feel guilty about feeling and expressing them.

And as for opinions on the topic of my psychological stability, my therapists would burst out laughing seeing these comments.

P.S. Do you people even know what hyperbole is?

You know… The fact that you like dogs, and I find them irritating at best and repulsive at worst, doesn’t indicate a psychological problem. I generally like animals. I live in a house surrounded by greenery and I really love the birds I take care of, the hedgehogs, and the squirrels who take care of themselves ;)

For me, being in the same room for a few minutes with a smelly, loud creature that climbs on your lap and licks your hands and face only makes me want to wring its neck. And it would be even better if it tried to do that after licking its own balls or after eating human feces it found in the park.

On the other hand, simply interacting with an animal that is compatible with a given person will have a positive effect on their psyche.

I hope so, since they buried him.

Unfortunately, the issue is more widespread in the world of UI design. Even in closed ecosystems like Windows, you have a random mix of different UI styles, and this cancer called “flat design” makes things even worse. Carl Svensson published a nice blog post about exactly this issue a couple of years ago: https://datagubbe.se/decusab/

Nice try, J. J. Abrams! I’m not going to give you my brilliant ideas for free so you can turn them into yet another shitty movie.

Diamanda Galás & John Paul Jones - Hex (YouTube)

DIAMANDA GALAS Sono L’ Antichristo (YouTube)

• Profit
• Utopia

Red Hat 5.0 “Hurricane” from 1997. I still have the CD.

I would rather suggest checking “about: support”, not “about: config”.

This reminds me of a certain Star Trek TNG episode titled “The Arsenal of Freedom”. Especially one specific moment of the episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmDm8MVhZiQ&t=148s

I’m using https://anytype.io/. Offline applications for all major systems, synchronization out of the box.

Death Machine (1994)

Charging Bull also known as Bull of Wall Street

The Ribbon isn’t the worst thing. It tried to solve the clutter of the previous interface, although I always preferred the old one.

Here is an interesting take on the problem of modern interfaces: https://datagubbe.se/decusab/

Until there is proof or external verification of the results, it’s just another case of Chinese propaganda.

The thing is, there is no universal definition of pornography. It varies from country to country. In my country, it doesn’t fulfill some of the criteria, in particular because:

• It does not depict human genital organs in their sexual functions
• It does not solely focus on the technical aspects of sexuality and sexual life, completely detached from the intellectual and personal layers

The more important thing is that the cropped version of the picture (which was used in the research papers) does not fulfill any criteria to be classified as pornography or even as nude art. Some don’t even know that this is only part of a nude photo. I saw this cropped picture in the 90s and was surprised later in the early 2000s by the full version.

I would say more. This is an example where some random nude photo became something more because it became part of science. So it’s rather an example of “deobjectification” because this picture is focused on her face in the hat, and not her reproductive organs.

Regarding objectification, the picture of any kind has nothing to do with women being objectified. Any person may be objectified only by being treated by another person or group of people as an object. For example, a cleaning lady may be objectified by one employer who does not treat her like a living, feeling person, but not by another employer. The same applies to sex workers and any other profession. It is our attitude that determines whether we objectify someone, not the picture of a woman in a hat.