That’s a very considered answer, I like it.

I expect if I was asked this question back when I was 20, I’d have said “20 lol”- because why on earth would you ever want to be older than that?

But that answer completely overlooks there’s a lot of external factors to consider which are increasingly relevant as your mental age diverges from your physical age. Right or wrong, perceptions matter and people will judge you on how you look.

30 is a very good middle ground where you could participate in just about any social group you wanted without sticking out too much.

Why are you commenting on a post you think has nothing to do with you, then?

But let me say this; corporations becoming increasingly emboldened to replace people with AI, disregard accessibility concerns, and make ethically bankrupt purchasing decisions without any consequence is something that perhaps should concern you, regardless of whether the company’s output is of relevance to your interests or not.

Hot take, I know.

Something new is good advice.

It’s temping to do something familiar to minimise the “risk” of a bad experience, but that’s false safety.

It’s human nature to get defensive of what we already know we like, and it puts the other person in a difficult position too where they may feel forced to pretend, or to keep their genuine opinion quiet.

Something new puts you both on an even footing, leaving neither disadvantaged, and that’s cool. And - as you say - even if it’s terrible, at least you can both laugh about it.

You edited it! Put it back lol, doesn’t make sense to change the context like that :)

Ohhh you really got my hopes up there. I was like “There’s an Outer Wilds 2!?” all excited

But no. There’s only an Outer Worlds 2, sadly :(

That’s a valid opinion if you want ownership over everything else, fair.

But to blanket-label Game Pass as “shit” right from the start really isn’t fair to all those people for whom it was good value, and gave access to a lot of games they probably wouldn’t have been able to justify otherwise.

Personally it wasn’t for me, because I too don’t like subscriptions, but for some of my friends it was and I respect that.

Some people only feel ‘successful’ through their perceived ‘position’ in society.

They want to believe they are above others.

If you think like that, then pushing others down is a perfectly valid route to happiness - and far faster and easier than working on yourself would be.

For real.

When I still had Netflix and Disney+ I’d want to watch a show on my PC, but I’d just get black screen with only audio, because something about my setup the DRM didn’t like. (Possibly that I have USB displaylink monitors.)

So I had to watch on another device.

DRM isn’t stopping content being ripped. It’s just making life a pain for paying customers.

It’s not “people” who are causing the proliferation of formats like webp though, it’s the web industry.

If you are a web platform, you want a format that gives you acceptable quality for the smallest size to reduce your bandwidth. You also want one that loads as fast as possible from a CPU prospective, so your site renders as fast as possible.

These are factors webp was designed for.

To your point, for home users jpeg remains a good-enough choice with no reason to change it. A preferred choice even, due to broad legacy compatibility. But we aren’t seeing proliferation of webp because people are at home willingly going “file -> export as -> webp” - no, we’re seeing it because industry is converting uploads to it, and people are saving those images.

Genuine question - what aspect of it didn’t work for them?

That’s the thing - we just can’t know. Sometimes a feature is just a feature, but with commercial software there’s always more risk it’s going to change under you for the wrong reasons when they find some way to monetise it.

Just get it done and don’t look back

It is innovation.

Just for the company, not for you.

If you’ve previously had the experience of reaching out to someone politely in good faith about a problem with your purchase, and they really were a scammer and responded “haha get fucked loser” and blocked you, that’s a mentally damaging interaction. You made yourself vulnerable and got taken advantage of. Not just once for buying from a scammer, but twice for then politely asking the scammer to help you! And that feels awful - as if the scammer “won”, and you are a sucker who didn’t even realise you’d been scammed.

That is why people are quick to go on the offensive when they suspect they’ve been wronged, because they’ve been hurt before and want to try and claw back some small measure of pride by saying effectively “Okay you scammed me, but I’m not so stupid I don’t see it, and I won’t make myself vulnerable to you.” - that’s what the message and block you received really means, if you unpack it.

I would be so much nicer if things weren’t this way, and we could assume the best in people. With honest sellers such as yourself, it would even lead to the problem getting fixed! But there are a lot of scammers out there, so I understand the psychological “why”, even if I don’t like it and try to never behave that way myself.

Plus, the whole point of a signature is that it’s easily reproducible by you, but not by other people.

Fast and fluid in a way that feels good to your hand is therefore the best signature, whereas something written slowly and precisely is easier to copy.