cobysev

When I lived in Germany for a couple years, I was surprised to learn that the large church in the center on my village was about 1,000 years old. This one building has been standing longer than America has been a country. Over 4x as long, too! European culture amazes me because there’s such a lengthy history, and so many things are much older than I’d imagine. American history is so short in comparison, and we’re more likely to tear down and build new and cheap than create a solid structure that will last for hundreds of years.

It’s more about framing the conversation in a way that helps OP’s supervisor realize they’re at odds with each other, socially, and that the supervisor needs to make changes, not OP. I know it’s a bit blunt and direct and may not exactly describe their relationship, but I’ve found that being direct and binary with extroverted people generally gets them to the point faster, rather than beating around the bush with complex descriptions of their dynamic.

And the supervisor being an extrovert is definitely a part of the problem in this case. They’re ignoring signals from OP that they don’t want to be social, shaming them for it, and forcing public interactions in order to change them. This is classic extrovert behavior which is making OP uncomfortable.

The topic of discussion is definitely off-limits and deserves a conversation with HR, but the supervisor still needs to understand that OP’s antisocial behavior isn’t a problem. Otherwise, the discussion will change to be more work-appropriate, but the behavior will remain.

As a fellow introvert, I’ve found that being meek and timid about uncomfortable situations just invites more trouble from extroverts. The best way to handle it is to be direct and firm. If she wants to be nosy, then drop all the gory details:

"I’m an introvert and I don’t feel comfortable sharing my personal life with coworkers. I know you, as an extrovert, want to be involved in everyone’s personal lives and there’s nothing wrong with that, but as a leader and a manager, you need to understand how to change tracks and adapt to your subordinates’ needs.

“I need time to myself to recharge; being around people is mentally and emotionally draining for me. It’s not something I can “fix,” it’s just the way I am, and no amount of exposure to people or social events will ever change that. I need you to understand that and adapt to my needs, in order for you to effectively manage me.”

I worked my way up the ranks in the US military and eventually found myself managing people. As an introvert, I found it extremely difficult to get out and talk to my subordinates. But I soon realized that the mission wouldn’t get done unless I did my job, so I quickly learned how to fake an extroverted personality while at work so I could talk to people and ensure mission success. Then I’d go home and crash. I’d spend my evenings either sleeping or bundled up, watching TV or playing video games, just to recharge so I could do it all again the next day.

But one of the things I learned was how to adapt to the needs of my subordinates. I had one guy who was a complete fuck-up. Couldn’t do anything right without someone holding his hand. So I either had to be very hands-on with him, or delegate that responsibility to one of my subordinate leaders.

But then I had another guy who grew up in a ghetto being plagued by corrupt cops, and he hated anyone in an authority position over him. Why he joined the military, I dunno. We were all about authority and respecting rank and file. But if I even spoke to him, he would shut down and then be unproductive all day. As long as I left him alone, he was my hardest and most productive worker. So I learned to leave him alone and he practically did my job for me. Maybe your supervisor needs to learn that lesson with you.

The common lingo originated from the movie The Matrix, where Neo was given the choice of taking the red pill and waking up in the real world, or taking the blue pill and staying in the fake fantasy that was his life.

4chan adopted the term and started calling themselves “redpilled,” claiming that they were removed from the happy fantasy promoted in popular culture (wife, kids, decent job, etc.) and could see life for the harsh, cruel reality it truly was.

The mindset spread to Reddit where a community popped up (r/theRedPill), espousing sexual strategies for men in a society where they felt sex was highly unattainable for their gender. It turned into a very misogynistic subreddit, hating on women who “could get laid anytime” and didn’t respect the plight of men who struggled for simple affection from the opposite gender.

Being “redpilled” took on a negative connotation, turning into a darker, conservative term to support men’s struggles in life while at the same putting down women. Its original meaning has been corrupted into a warped idealism for men. One could argue it’s promoting the opposite of its origin; fighting to create a fantasy world for men to flourish without effort instead of introducing them to the reality that their struggles are all self-inflicted and needed hard work, patience, and determination to overcome.

The term became well enough recognized that “_____-pilled” started introducing other concepts of being introduced to harsh truths in the world. In this case, blackpilled, meaning to give in to despair and depression in an uncaring, cruel world.

Metal Gear Solid 4 is the only MGS game I’ve had an itch to play for years now. But my PS3 broke years ago and that game has never been ported anywhere else. I was sad to learn that the first Master Collection didn’t include it, so I’m hopeful this second collection makes it playable on Steam.

it’s not super common

I’m 40 years old. This was pretty common to hear when I was a kid. But as the younger generations grow up, the language changes, along with the public mindset. Possessive phrases like this used to be considered romantic because it meant you were desired by someone. In today’s culture, it’s creepy because it sounds more like someone sees you as a thing to own.

It’s actually been a long time since I heard someone use this particular phrase.

Yes, this is what I meant. The Red Cross said my blood type is rarely needed in my area so they don’t care about me donating blood. But they’re always needing plasma donations, and you can donate them more frequently than blood, so they recommend I do that instead.

People are getting paid to donate plasma?! The only scam here is that I’ve been giving it away for free!

I donate to the Red Cross here in America. Honestly, I’m happy to donate. I get to sit and relax for a couple hours, the Red Cross I go to has TVs attached to the chairs so I can watch a movie while I donate, and I get free drinks and snacks afterward.

They’re always hurting for plasma donations and you can donate every 28 days, so I visit frequently. I don’t really see how it could be a scam. They always tell me plasma is more important than blood donations. Blood goes bad quickly, but they can keep plasma for a long time. And pretty much everyone can use it. Unlike blood, which you need a compatible type to use.

I donate because I enjoy helping others. I’m not looking for a way to personally benefit from it, so I don’t really care if they offer to pay or not. I feel like that should be the default mindset going in. But I understand there are people who are hurting financially, and donating blood or plasma is an easy way to make a buck. So I’m fine with them offering to pay for donations.

I think it’s great for a ground-floor investment in a YouTube competitor. It draws more people to the platform, gets a chunk of money flowing up front to help boost the service, and they can always sunset the lifetime option if the site gets popular and revenue starts to get tight. As long as they continue to honor it for everyone who paid initially.

Like I said in my original comment, a Nebula subscription is only $6/mo. A lifetime access payment is over 4 years of subscriptions up front. That’s a nice chunk of change to help get them established.

I saw someone’s video about how Nebula works (I think Legal Eagle? He was advertising it hardcore on YouTube for a while) and the subscription service is how they pay content creators. He said it’s a more stable income than YouTube, where your videos earn advertising money based on trends and visibility. If you’re not YouTube famous (and the algorithm doesn’t make you visible), you’re not going to make any money on the platform. But Nebula gives you a more solid income, plus the freedom to make the content you want. No AI moderators flagging videos because it thought it detected the word “suicide” or something. No forcing you to include key words or pushing regular videos on a tight schedule to ensure the algorithm keeps recommending your channel.

Yeah, like I said, it needs more content creators to dump their libraries there. It could be a fantastic competitor to YouTube if only more people knew about it and used it.

I got into Pokémon when the card game and anime first came to America. I was in jr high school at the time and collected so many of the original cards. Never finished my collection, though.

I got into the Pokémon craze at first, but stopped following it in my later years of high school. I was too busy preparing to be an adult, so I set it aside and forgot about it for years. I didn’t even know there were more than 151 Pokémon until over a decade later.

I learned some of the newer generations with Pokémon Go, but I still remember all of the original 151 Pokémon. The newer stuff is just weird to me.

EDIT: I never got into the games, even though they started releasing when I was a teenager. Pokémon Go was actually my first game in the franchise; although I watched my friends play the classic Red and Blue games back in the day.

Find me a self publishing video platform with the reach of YouTube that doesn’t require self hosting and I’ll happily move my content there.

Nebula is the next best thing to YouTube, but not enough content creators have moved their stuff there, so it’s easy to run out of interesting videos to watch after a while. Some of the bigger folks I follow share their content on both platforms, and the incentive to watch on Nebula instead of YouTube is that content creators have more freedom with their videos on Nebula. They can post bonus/extra footage that would be automatically flagged and blocked by YouTube normally. Don’t need to dance around the censors on Nebula.

Nebula is subscription-based, so they don’t show ads anywhere on their site. But if you don’t want to pay for another subscription service, you can also do a one-time payment to have lifetime access to their site. It’s $300, which is the cost of just over 4 years of their subscription service ($6/mo). Considering I’ve had an account for over 3 years now, it’s almost paid for itself.

I worked at an Arby’s back in high school (over 20 years ago). They told me free refills were a thing because most customers don’t refill more than once, if at all. Also, the soda water costs pennies and the bags of concentrated soda syrup were only like $10 (at the time). A single bag of syrup, mixed with soda water, could fill customer’s soda cups for maybe 2-3 days before it needed to be replaced. Fast food restaurants make insane profits on soda, so they don’t care if customers refilled multiple times during their visit.

Back when my wife and I were still dating, she found a cheap ring she loved. It was just a normal jewelry ring with her favorite stones in it, not a fancy engagement ring or anything. But she loved it so much, she told me that if I ever proposed to her, she gave me permission to steal it from her and re-present it as an engagement ring. Which I did.

I felt bad about it though. I took the ring to propose, but my plans fell through and it took me a few more days to arrange a new proposal plan. She had forgotten all about our conversation, so the whole time she was tearing the house apart, looking for her favorite ring. She loved that I “found” it and gave it back to her with a proposal.

Otherwise known as shrinkflation. Selling a product for the same (or higher) price, but adding less of the product. By cutting small, barely noticeable portions out a little at a time, the company saves money in materials, but continues charging the same price. Basically, min-maxing profits.

My birth year is the same as the title of a dystopian future novel by George Orwell.

The US owns a bunch of Caribbean “territories” that they still won’t make into US states. Their citizens are US citizens, but can’t vote.

EDIT: The current US itself was carved out of territories owned by Mexico, France, and England (which took them from Native American tribes). Back in the day, we conquered and stole a bunch of land, both from natives and from other invading countries.

But we’ve been more interested in foreign politics since WWII and less about expanding our own land. Besides, why own a bunch of foreign soil when we can just set up outposts around the globe and have a military frontline anywhere? I served in the US military and we have so many bases scattered around every region of the globe. We can literally involve ourselves in any global conflict we want to within a day or two. Meanwhile, our actual homeland is isolated on the other side of the planet, where it’s difficult for foreign invaders to touch us.

There was a big deal about Ubisoft removing Assassin’s Creed 1 and 2 last year, and I remember it because I was in the middle of a replay of the first game, and I quit as soon as they announced they were pulling it. Honestly, I haven’t checked to see if they actually removed them; they may have reneged on that decision over the backlash. I’ll try to reinstall it tonight and see if I can still access it.

But that announcement was when people really started to hate on Ubisoft for their poor business practices, which led to the comment mentioned in this meme. It started because they talked about removing access to paid-for games.

Ubisoft removed Assassin’s Creed 1 and 2 from their online game library, claiming some BS like they want to focus their attention on newer games. The original games had no online services; it shouldn’t take any effort to provide access to them online.

Everyone who owns them through Steam or Ubisoft Connect can’t play them anymore, unless they still have a physical disc for the Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3 consoles. If you bought a digital copy, you paid for a game that you can no longer play.

THAT is why this quote is especially evil. Not because of some choice of subscription vs. buying, but because Ubisoft has the ability to make our fully-paid for games unplayable.

For the younger folks who missed it, the text is an Airplane! (1980) reference, which itself was a parody of Zero Hour! (1957).