EdamAnchorman

Check out the VW ID.3, the specs look pretty nice. I actually wish they were coming to the states.

Yeah I consider those big, expensive trucks rich people vehicles. ? Given the performance specs of the cybertruck, it can probably cross categories between rich truck people and rich sports car people. I think there will always be a subset of people who will just want to drive it because of how unique and different it is, and those people tend to have the disposable income to spend on a truck like this. That's really what I was trying to say with my post, I guess. These big trucks (and SUVs) are the legacy automakers' bread and butter. They had better be afraid of the cybertruck; I think I saw that a few of them were announcing their own EV trucks but they aren't nearly as ahead of the EV game and as agile as Tesla so I'm afraid some blunders will inevitably occur.

That price point is assuming that when this goes into production, Tesla will have its next-gen batteries which will supposedly be lower cost. It's likely that the production will be delayed and the price increased, based on Tesla's history. However, the specs at that price point are a great value. Regarding the appearance, it will look slightly different when they add side mirrors and a few other things to it. I think most people probably think it's ugly, but that won't stop people from buying it. I was amazed that anybody bought the mid-1990s RAM pickups or the Pontiac Trans Sport or those ugly expensive boxy Mercedes SUVs. There will be plenty of rich people who will drive one just to say, "look at how rich I am, I can drive around in a car that's expensive AND butt-ass ugly."

Box set is amazing, so much material! "Dune" might be one of my favorite Underworld tracks ever.

Misery

Growing up in the pseudo-midwest (Ohio), I was subjected to some pretty shitty pizza, mostly of the rectangular and too-doughy variety. Best pizza I've ever had was at Frank Pepe's in New Haven, CT Awesome white clam pie as well

Glengarry Glen Ross

Thanks for the great explanation. It seems that I do prefer the guitar-based looped drone which I tend to call "ambient / drone", hence my post asking if there was a sub-genre. ? I am familiar with and do like the other artists you mentioned under that umbrella.

Thanks for your response! It's hard to explain what I mean by more "hardcore" drone, because I was never trained in music and I really don't know the terms, I only go by what my ears tell me, which is subjective of course. I guess a lot of the suggestions I've heard in this thread sound more "harsh" and don't have as much shifting around (to my ears) as opposed to the artists I referenced earlier. I've found that I prefer "drone" music that is a little "softer" with more shifting and perhaps tonal layers(?), if that makes any sense. If that's still considered "drone" and not some sub-genre, then so be it! It's interesting that Hakobune, one of my favorite drone artists, is also in a harsh noise band.

hey droid, thanks for the awesome links and recommendations. when i got into this type of music, it was mainly through the Japanese artists Hakobune and Nobuto Suda, which i considered to be full-on drone and i would describe it as such to my wife and others who were ignorant about the associated genres. after seeing this thread though, i would classify them not as real hardcore drone, but something more toward ambient, but not ambient either as it seems much more toward the drone side of the spectrum than what most people consider ambient. what would you consider music like this (some of the links i posted earlier in this thread), is there even a sub-genre between drone and ambient? i'm asking because this is where i find most of my sensibilities to lie, i love it much more than most other "ambient" music, but these hardcore drones are sometimes too much for me. thanks!

Because the ones who have too much have more power to form and shape the laws and regulations.

Sphere

I'm not sure they are any more or less competent than the Dems, but the perception is that they are more competent. I have a feeling that this is because the Republicans are more willing than the Democrats to "play dirty", and by that I mean willing to yell and shout and blame anything bad that happens on the Democrats, justified or not, and take credit for anything good that they can, justified or not. I feel like the Democrats are all like, "hey, why can't we have a civilized dialogue about all this?" and the Republicans are all like, "DO YOU SMELL WHAT THE ROCK IS COOKIN?" Of course many Americans respond positively to the latter.

Yeah I knew it wasn't exactly what you were looking for, but close. My bad on the av, I wish I could find my Fred mspaint avatar, got it saved somewhere.

Kind of what you're looking for, but I can see that you wouldn't know this from your Fred-drawn avatar:

Sideways, but with commentary from Giamatti and Church. A few nuggets of insight, but it was basically Giamatti and Church in a competition to see who could wordsmith the most obscure references. Church won.

Downton Abbey

No, I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. Sorry if I can't articulate it well enough, I have problems with that sometimes. I'm saying that people should vote for the candidate that best represents themselves and their views. Tally up the votes, and the candidate with the most votes wins, which should be the one that represents the most amount of people. Everyone who didn't vote for the winner has to compromise, but that's OK because theoretically the winner will represent the largest subsection of voters. I'm completely fine with the fact that I have to compromise if my choice doesn't get elected, that just means that my views don't necessarily align with the largest section of voters and I'm fine with that. I don't want the government to serve me personally, I want it to serve the largest amount of people possible. Now I get that if there are only two candidates, people will have to compromise and vote for the one of the two that most closely aligns with their values, but this is why I think the primaries are more important than the general election. For example, I know a lot of Dems who hated HRC but didn't vote in the primaries, then because they couldn't bring themselves to vote for HRC they just didn't vote, maybe also because they didn't think Trump could actually win. All I'm saying is that, throughout the entire process, people need to participate and vote for who they want to represent them. And then if their candidate doesn't make it, compromise and vote for the person who is closest to their views. Here's my issue: in the last election, I really didn't think that HRC represented the largest section of Dem voters. I'm not just talking about the narrative that Bernie got shafted, he may or may not have, I don't really care. I felt like the people leading the Dems decided that HRC was going to be their nominee no matter what, and I didn't like that they made that choice for everyone which is why I didn't vote for her. I felt like I would be endorsing their tactics and emboldening them to do it again next time. Of course my perception could've been wrong and I'm willing to accept the consequences.

I see both of your points. The point I was trying to make is that I wonder how many people compromise, like you say, and vote for the lesser of two evils because they're afraid of what might happen if the other guy wins. I wonder if there are enough people who, if they voted how they really felt, could make a difference and shift the system to get candidates that actually serve the people they're supposed to represent. I know it's idealistic, but it's the way it's supposed to work and I just don't want to resign myself to saying, "well that's the way it is so I guess I'll just compromise." I'm asking what would happen if we didn't compromise and actually tried to take control of things. The government is supposed to serve the people, but I feel that the candidates that both parties keep pushing forward hardly do that and if we keep compromising like this, they're going to keep pushing the limits and serving their own interests over the people's until we eventually reach a tipping point where enough people are in shitty enough situations where they'll be motivated enough to act.

I'm tired of this narrative. Sure if only 1 person does it that's true, but what if everyone who is fed up with this bullshit did it. Would it be a vote for Trump then? I feel like this was HRC's whole platform, "you'd better vote for me because you don't want Trump in office, right?" What if I voted for Biden? I would consider that throwing away my vote because I don't want him to be president.

Which is why ALL of the sane people who just want a functioning government need to give them all the middle finger by voting but writing in their choice. It's never gonna happen, but wouldn't it be great if there was a statistically large number of write-in votes? I feel that's the only way to alter the course of where it seems we're headed, because the establishment on both sides would realize they've lost party-line voters and perhaps make some changes to try to get them back. But as it is, the narrative is that if you don't vote your party line, you're throwing your vote away.

Of course they do. I'll bet this divisiveness has greatly increased viewership, and the media doesn't want to lose out on that. Everyone is tuning in either to see what boneheaded thing Trump said this time or to get upset about the latest things the "libtards" want to take from them.

My trappist / Belgian cap holder is almost full: Also, I have an Orval in my basement that will turn 5 years old this month, I am gonna try to have it next to a young Orval to see how different they are.

I bought a NM Revised complete set a few years back for a few grand, now the value has almost doubled thanks to the reserved list.

Same.