• @sinovictorchan
    12•2 years ago

    I use English due communication and not for cultural identity so I will tolerate English that does not meet the ‘idealistic’ standard.

  • @Magos_Galactose
    11•2 years ago

    TIL that Worcester isn’t actually pronounce “War-ces-ter”

    • loathesome dongeater
      12•2 years ago

      Massive mistake on your part to assume that an English name is pronounced the same way it is spelt

    • @comradecartiOP
      6•2 years ago

      You have failed to considered the silent orce, the invisible u, and the alignment of the stars and planets

    • @folaht
      1•2 years ago

      I thought it was War-chess-ter and they just forgot an h.
      Otherwise it would sound like War-sis-ter.

  • @deepfriedwater
    9•2 years ago

    Seriously, I have no respect for this language, it’s terrible

      • @KommandoGZD
        3•2 years ago

        Essentially just umami extract, making the food more savoury. Japenese use stuff like this in ramen as well. Dashis and tares use plenty of fish products (eg bonito flakes) and dried kelp (kombu) to make the dish more savoury. They aren’t used for their own flavour, but cooking with them enhances the other flavours.

        Fish sauce in asian cuisine serves a similar purpose. It’s not used to add a fishy taste, but to give a dish more body. Afaik some Pho recipes use it despite not being a fish dish in any way. Essentially they function as natural flavour enhancers. Adding some MSG would serve a similar purpose.

  • @tobychad
    3•5 months ago

    deleted by creator

  • JucheBot1988
    3•2 years ago

    Mine is getting annoyed whenever some Brit, or starry-eyed Yankee, references British pop culture. Like, I’m already inundated with crappy American pop culture1 – why would I want to further the experience with some crappy imitation2 of the crappy?

    NOTES:

    (1) No, there are aren’t any exceptions to this universal crappiness. Yes, that includes Star Wars, Star Trek, and whatever “independent” fantasy/capeshit/omg-so-dystopian board RPG you happen to like.

    (2) Yes, this includes the Beatles. Anyone who can listen to “Imagine” without cringing inside is either a shitlib or a boomer, probably both. Listen to Soviet music for gosh sake, people.

      • Capitalist Tears
        3•2 years ago

        Not trying to invalidate your take. but after watching the whole Star Wars saga I don’t get why is it popular.

        The characters are shallow, the plot is plain good vs. evil without any depth(which is such a 'murican thing) and a bit too long-winded for me, but the setting surely was novel which was cool. I think the extreme marketing around it made it too popular to be uncool.

        Shows like Firefly/Cowboy Bepop do a better justice to space-drama imo.

        • @folaht
          4•2 years ago

          It’s a “first experience” kind of thing.

          The first film that was made in 1978.
          It was the first movie that gave it’s viewers the “space adventure experience” and it didn’t feel aged until around 25 years later, just like the Beatles music that gave listeners the “rock dance experience”.

          No movie at that time had the “pew pew” plasma gun sound effects or the “voom” plasma sword effects.
          On top of that, it also wasn’t made by a large corporation, so it adhered to solid storytelling, rather than marketed storytelling.
          The two later movies were of the same story quality.

          For me, experiencing both around 1992 at age 10, Star Wars still was without equal and it wasn’t until the Independence Day movie that it’s special effects stopped being special.
          The Beatles on the other hand, felt unfinished, experimental, or just on par with average pop song to me, while Queen was still the classic rock music top quality standard.

          In 2001 the next trilogy of Star Wars started and I guess they were hoping to get that same experience back with lots of CGI, except that had already been done in 1994 with Jurassic Park.
          On top of that, CGI has two problems compared to other special effects.

          1. The actors can’t see the CGI and so they’re told to just imagine what they see, leading to subpar performances.
          2. Unless it can fool the viewer that it’s real, it looks very ugly.
          3. CGI allows any movie scene to be possible, but this can fall into the trap of #2. All three were present in the second trilogy.

          Storywise they also made a couple of errors.

          Then there’s the third trilogy.
          No new technology was used there as far as I’m aware.
          I think the Mandalorian used new tech, some kind of CGI room, that solves issue #1.
          And the storytelling was a confusing mess mixed with a feminist tract, not a space adventure.

          • Capitalist Tears
            0•2 years ago

            Perspective widened, thanks!

            I watched it when I was 20-21 and actually enjoyed the visuals even though it was after movies with much better CGI. The plot never grew on me I guess. I can equate this to me being utterly unimpressed by The Avatar.