Came here to say this exact thing! lol

Some people just want to watch the world burn

Have seen both sides of the fence on this.

Met my first wife when I was in my 20s, she was a bit older, already divorced with kids. We were together for over 10 years, and one of her sons lived with us off and on during his teenage years. We enjoyed all the benefits of a childless existence - disposable income, freedom to do whatever we wanted evenings/weekends, etc, etc.

Eventually our marriage broke down. The reasons for it are entirely unrelated to us not having kids, but we were definitely not destined to be together for the rest of our lives.

About a year or so later I met an incredible woman, and I truly learned what it meant to have a soulmate. We were awesome together. She already had two young kids - 6yo and 9yo - and, a year or so later again, we had our own baby girl. We married a couple of years after that.

We now have a family that includes an amazing 21yo woman, a fabulous 18yo fella, and a beautiful 10yo daughter. My life is complete and I can't imagine it without any of them in it.

When you know, you know.

The whole point of this particular comment thread here is that we’re already starting to see what’s happening: people are taking back control. You’re here on Lemmy, proving that exact point.

I never said we needed Cory to tell us what comes next. Just come up with another colourfully descriptive term like he did with enshittification.

You sound like that insufferable ponytail from Good Will Hunting.

Cheers. Fixed.

We need Cory to coin a term for what comes after enshittification. Perhaps we can call it the Great Wipening, where we all stop paying to be treated like serfs and start taking back control of our content and data.

Bloody oath! My brothers and my closest mates all get hugs, and my near 18yo stepson and I still hug goodbye or goodnight too.

Nice one. This statement in particular sums it up nicely:

Jung did not see the type preferences (such as introversion and extraversion) as dualistic, but rather as tendencies: both are innate and have the potential to balance.

I remember reading elsewhere that it'd be like drawing a line down the middle of a table of people's heights, so that those who were 5 feet 10 inches and under would be the "shorts" and those 5 feet 11 inches and taller would be the "talls".

I've always felt that the Myers-Briggs shit was utter nonsense, having been forced many times to go through it at several employers over the years.

Any chance you've got a decent source that debunks it? I'd love to have it in my pocket for next time...

I remember buying some bits and pieces to setup my home theatre in a new house years ago, and the guy at the store tried to sell me a $100 TOSLINK cable. When I asked why a $12 cable was going for so much, he pointed out that it was the "premium" cable, to ensure the highest quality audio.

I couldn't stop laughing. Like their special cable scrubbed the photons before sending them or something.

See? That just illustrates my point perfectly. I reckon Tarantino intentionally sets out to put people firmly on either side of the love/hate fence, with each film.

I’m a huge Tarantino fan and enjoyed every single one of his movies, except that one.

Are you including Jackie Brown in this assessment? Because that's the one Tarantino film I'd never return to. Bored the shit out of me.

I can see how Once Upon a Time in Hollywood wouldn't do it for a lot of people. The storyline was pretty bloody thin.

From memory, my wife and I had only just recently watched the Aquarius TV series (a few years after it was made) followed by Mindhunter (we were on a true crime kick back then), so the intersection with the Manson murders kept us hooked. Also, Tarantino using the same Aussie actor from Mindhunter to reprise the role of Manson felt like a really cool Easter egg.

But, that's the thing about Tarantino - he's always going to be polarizing. You either love or hate a given piece of his work, I guess.