Completely Inconsequential Hot-Takes 2: People Take Too Long to Post New Threads

[Cazero]

How am I supposed to hold my phone with one end near my ear and the other near my mouth if it's in landscape?

[enderlord99]

How am I supposed to hold my phone with one end near my ear and the other near my mouth if it's in landscape?

Keep your chin up

[Ionathus]

Cellphones should operate exclusively in landscape mode

Now THAT'S a hot take! I hate it so much!

Please elaborate

[Bohandas]

The keyboard is bigger when typing, videos recorded in landscape are a respectable aspect ratio instead of that sideways tiktok nonsense, and it's more like a videogame controller when playing a game

[Rynjin]

The keyboard is bigger when typing, videos recorded in landscape are a respectable aspect ratio instead of that sideways tiktok nonsense, and it's more like a videogame controller when playing a game

All of that is cool but you can already do all of those things so I'm unclear why you think it's a good idea to remove functionality from a phone

Do you work for Apple?

[Ionathus]

Aha, another crusader in the fight against the VVS pandemic, I see.

[halfeye]

The keyboard is bigger when typing, videos recorded in landscape are a respectable aspect ratio instead of that sideways tiktok nonsense, and it's more like a videogame controller when playing a game

It's the way they are meant to be used, obviously, why else would films be in that orientation?

[Rockphed]

Some things are better in landscape mode, but I find that reading things actually works better in portrait mode because the screen is closer to the aspect ratio typically used in books.

Speaking of, having a website that I cannot fully navigate in a screen that is taller than it is wide is not accessible. *glares at XKCD*

[Ionathus]

Some things are better in landscape mode, but I find that reading things actually works better in portrait mode because the screen is closer to the aspect ratio typically used in books.

Speaking of, having a website that I cannot fully navigate in a screen that is taller than it is wide is not accessible. *glares at XKCD*

Yep. You’d think that websites would be easier to view in landscape orientation (with Desktop Mode enabled of course, since otherwise the mobile UI is designed for portrait mode). But it never seems to work that way. Clunky widgets/UI choices are a big part of this, plus the fact that if I’m on a website I probably want to type something, and trying to use the keyboard in landscape mode leaves me with naught but a sliver of the actual webpage still visible.

Using portrait mode splits your screen into half keyboard, half actual screen, giving a good balance between navigation and typing.

[Bohandas]

Using the keyboard in portrait mode leaves me with effectively no keyboard

[Rater202]

More villains should be defeated anti-climactically.

Not every villain deserves a big, dramatic defeat and in those cases of there's not a cathartic reason for a drawn-out defeat or an epic battle a quick humbling or being eliminated by the consequences of their own actions may, on occasion, be more satisfying,

[Batcathat]

More villains should be defeated anti-climactically.

Not every villain deserves a big, dramatic defeat and in those cases of there's not a cathartic reason for a drawn-out defeat or an epic battle a quick humbling or being eliminated by the consequences of their own actions may, on occasion, be more satisfying,

I agree.

That also reminds me of one of my own takes: More villains should be defeated by the hero acting "dishonorably" (and/or: More villains should win by the hero refusing to act "dishonorably").

[Rockphed]

I recently read a book ("The Forged Prince") where one of the characters opines that if your enemy had anything like your morals they probably wouldn't be your enemy.

That said, our society does not want to encourage a bloodthirsty, win-at-any-cost attitude, so stories where the heroes are loath to shed blood and quick to accept surrender are common.

[InvisibleBison]

I recently read a book ("The Forged Prince") where one of the characters opines that if your enemy had anything like your morals they probably wouldn't be your enemy.

That seems pretty obviously false to me. Conflicts of interest are perfectly capable of creating enmity between people with similar morals.

[Peelee]

More villains should be defeated anti-climactically.

Not every villain deserves a big, dramatic defeat and in those cases of there's not a cathartic reason for a drawn-out defeat or an epic battle a quick humbling or being eliminated by the consequences of their own actions may, on occasion, be more satisfying,

I agree.

That also reminds me of one of my own takes: More villains should be defeated by the hero acting "dishonorably" (and/or: More villains should win by the hero refusing to act "dishonorably").

I recently read a book ("The Forged Prince") where one of the characters opines that if your enemy had anything like your morals they probably wouldn't be your enemy.

That said, our society does not want to encourage a bloodthirsty, win-at-any-cost attitude, so stories where the heroes are loath to shed blood and quick to accept surrender are common.

Hot take: y'all would love the film Ij Bruges.

[Draconi Redfir]

Yep. You’d think that websites would be easier to view in landscape orientation (with Desktop Mode enabled of course, since otherwise the mobile UI is designed for portrait mode). But it never seems to work that way. Clunky widgets/UI choices are a big part of this, plus the fact that if I’m on a website I probably want to type something, and trying to use the keyboard in landscape mode leaves me with naught but a sliver of the actual webpage still visible.

Using portrait mode splits your screen into half keyboard, half actual screen, giving a good balance between navigation and typing.

you know what would fix this?

phones that have actual buttons again.

So here's my lukewarm take: Give phones buttons again dangit! I'm tired of my buttons being on the thing I'm trying to look at!Real, physical buttons are 100% better!

my old phone had a single button on the bottom to return me to the main menu any time i wanted. The phone i currently have doesn't do that. so when i downloaded and tried out a game for awhile... i couldn't get out of it! There was no way for me to actually exit the game! i was only able to get out because there was a breif 1/2 second window of being on the main menu when i turned the phone off and on again, and i had a notification on the main menu, so i quickly hit that as soon as possible so i could close and uninstall the game.

Just give me a button i can push at any time! give me multiple buttons i can push to spell out the alphabit! none of this slidey-swipey buttons-aren't-real nonsense that just limits how much i can see and smudges up my screen!

[Bohandas]

Do you mean you turned the screen on and off?

If you turned that actual phone all the way off and on and was still taking up your screen after the phone rebooted then that may have been some kind of malware and not a legitimate game

I agree.

That also reminds me of one of my own takes: More villains should be defeated by the hero acting "dishonorably"

In particular more should be shot while trying to surrender and weasel their way out of responsibility. There's a pile of bodies from both sides that's ten feet deep but the guy who started the whole affair is going to be taken alive? No!

That's a pet peeve of mine. Often the villain doesn't even try to surrender and the hero spares him anyway, leaving the question of what the hell the rest of it was all for.

[Peelee]

In particular more should be shot while trying to surrender and weasel their way out of responsibility. There's a pile of bodies from both sides that's ten feet deep but the guy who started the whole affair is going to be taken alive? No!

That would only serve to make it pointless to surrender - if they're going to die either way, then why not keep fighting and possibly take you out?

[Rater202]

In particular more should be shot while trying to surrender and weasel their way out of responsibility. There's a pile of bodies from both sides that's ten feet deep but the guy who started the whole affair is going to be taken alive? No!

I'm pretty sure shooting an enemy combatant while they're surrendering is a war crime and "taken alive to be tried for their crimes" is not "weaseling out of responsibility."

[Bohandas]

I'm pretty sure shooting an enemy combatant while they're surrendering is a war crime and "taken alive to be tried for their crimes" is not "weaseling out of responsibility."

I'm not talking about an enemy combatant - I have no problem with them accepting the surrender of enemy combatants - I'm talking about the guy giving the orders. The main villain that the whole movie is oriented around taking down.

Also, a lot of these movies aren't set on 20th-21st century Earth, so it doesn't apply to them regardless.

Also, sometimes the hero spares him and he hasn't even actually surrendered. But he had no problem shooting all of the villain's random mooks. What the hell is the point of that? That's the thing that really peeves me and so now I want to see the opposite of that.

EDIT: Furthermore I'm pretty sure I did describe this as "dishonorable". The description was part of a quotation but it was there nonetheless.

EDIT: And in any case, however good it may be for governance it's an unsatisfying end to an action film

[Peelee]

EDIT: And in any case, however good it may be for governance it's an unsatisfying end to an action film

If the protag doesn't kill the hero because they just can't, or would make them as bad as the antag, and only after killing others without qualm? I agree. If the antag surrenders? Hard disagree. A win is a win, I'm not going to demand bloodshed for it to be satisfying.

[Batcathat]

Also, sometimes the hero spares him and he hasn't even actually surrendered. But he had no problem shooting all of the villain's random mooks. What the hell is the point of that? That's the thing that really peeves me and so now I want to see the opposite of that.

I do kind of agree with this part, heroes often seem to go out of their way to save (or at least avoid taking) the Big Bad's life far more often than Random Mook #8's.

If the protag doesn't kill the hero because they just can't, or would make them as bad as the antag, and only after killing others without qualm? I agree. If the antag surrenders? Hard disagree. A win is a win, I'm not going to demand bloodshed for it to be satisfying.

Yeah, pretty much this. "If you [something, usually kill the bad guy], you'll be just as bad as them" and its many variation is one of the most annoying cliches in all of fiction, I think.

What I really want is pretty much for reality not to bend over backwards to ensure that the hero doing "the Right Thing" will never ever come back to bite them, even when it really should. And for more heroes to realize that if you're willing to sacrifice your life for something, maybe you should consider being willing to sacrifice your ethics too.

[Peelee]

And for more heroes to realize that if you're willing to sacrifice your life for something, maybe you should consider being willing to sacrifice your ethics too.

I deliberately used protagonist and antagonist instead of hero and villain because I think that works better, but regardless, if you'd like to watch a movie where all the 'tagonists, both pro- and an-, absolutely keep to their ethics and you would applaud them all for it, I would again recommend In Bruges.

Spoiler: Best to go in blind, but mild spoiler if you don't care

Show

Three different people have three different takes on the aftermath of killing a child, and all three are pretty hard to disagree with.

[Keltest]

I do kind of agree with this part, heroes often seem to go out of their way to save (or at least avoid taking) the Big Bad's life far more often than Random Mook #8's.



Yeah, pretty much this. "If you [something, usually kill the bad guy], you'll be just as bad as them" and its many variation is one of the most annoying cliches in all of fiction, I think.

What I really want is pretty much for reality not to bend over backwards to ensure that the hero doing "the Right Thing" will never ever come back to bite them, even when it really should. And for more heroes to realize that if you're willing to sacrifice your life for something, maybe you should consider being willing to sacrifice your ethics too.

As a rule of thumb, if youre willing to sacrifice them, they arent your ethics to begin with. Its one thing to be in a no win situation where theres no ethical choice, but thats different from just making an exception because of your emotional state.

[Batcathat]

I deliberately used protagonist and antagonist instead of hero and villain because I think that works better, but regardless, if you'd like to watch a movie where all the 'tagonists, both pro- and an-, absolutely keep to their ethics and you would applaud them all for it, I would again recommend In Bruges.

Yeah, I've heard good things about it, maybe I'll give it a shot.

And obviously it's not automatically a better story just because a character sacrifices their morality, it's just I find it so silly when, say, the entire world is at stake so the heroic protagonist is obviously willing to die to stop the antagonist, but doing something dishonorable to stop them is obviously off-limits. At that point it just comes off as selfish and stupid to not be willing to feel bad to save the day, I think.

As a rule of thumb, if youre willing to sacrifice them, they arent your ethics to begin with. Its one thing to be in a no win situation where theres no ethical choice, but thats different from just making an exception because of your emotional state.

Because of your emotional state? Sure, I agree. What I'm talking about is the hero deliberately limiting themselves when the consequences for failing are immense.

And ethics should depend on the situation, I wouldn't normally use violence of any kind against another person, but in an extreme enough situation I would certainly be willing to. Does that mean that my ethics, that apply in all other situations, doesn't exist?

[InvisibleBison]

And ethics should depend on the situation, I wouldn't normally use violence of any kind against another person, but in an extreme enough situation I would certainly be willing to. Does that mean that my ethics, that apply in all other situations, doesn't exist?

No, it just means that your ethics are more nuanced than "violence is never acceptable".

[Batcathat]

No, it just means that your ethics are more nuanced than "violence is never acceptable".

Fair enough, so I suppose what I'm asking for is for more fictional characters to have ethical nuances that include exceptions for more extreme situations. Or at least for the authors behind said characters to let their characters face the consequences for their rigid ethics.

[Lord Raziere]

As a rule of thumb, if youre willing to sacrifice them, they arent your ethics to begin with. Its one thing to be in a no win situation where theres no ethical choice, but thats different from just making an exception because of your emotional state.

Yes, its why I'm not too particularly keen on making my action heroes/adventurers/whatever particularly worried or caring much about morality, with them often not calling themselves heroes. They know their lives of adventure, violence and getting rid of whatever threat that they come across isn't how everyone should live, just the way they themselves like living. Taking too many moral high grounds would be hypocritical when your willing to go full pragmatic fighter on what you fight.

[Draconi Redfir]

Do you mean you turned the screen on and off?

If you turned that actual phone all the way off and on and was still taking up your screen after the phone rebooted then that may have been some kind of malware and not a legitimate game

just the screen i'd guess. Even so, there should not be a need to turn the screen off a bunch of times in order to exit a game.

just give me a physical button that brings me to the main menu, this ain't hard.

I'm pretty sure shooting an enemy combatant while they're surrendering is a war crime and "taken alive to be tried for their crimes" is not "weaseling out of responsibility."

i will never understand the whole "They must be tried for their crimes!" thing. like, there has GOT to be a limit there, surely. Dude just blew up two entire inhabited planets while keeping the population of four others as non-consenting labourers who are regularly lashed and rarely fed, and you want too... put him in a courtroom to determine if he's guilty? Maybe put him in a prison for a few years? Where he has the potential to escape or be freed to cause yet another reign of terror?

Respectfully... come on. Just finish the job now so it's over and people can be free.

[Keltest]

i will never understand the whole "They must be tried for their crimes!" thing. like, there has GOT to be a limit there, surely. Dude just blew up two entire inhabited planets while keeping the population of four others as non-consenting labourers who are regularly lashed and rarely fed, and you want too... put him in a courtroom to determine if he's guilty? Maybe put him in a prison for a few years? Where he has the potential to escape or be freed to cause yet another reign of terror?

Respectfully... come on. Just finish the job now so it's over and people can be free.

Frequently the point is delegation of authority, or to demonstrate respect for the rule of law. Yeah, Superman can throw someone into the sun no problem, but he refrains from doing so because he doesn't want to be the ultimate arbiter of justice, and he wants there to be an authority above him.