At some point, sound mixing just went to shit. My partner was in the industry working in post-production and agrees with me. The sfx are loud and the dialogue is not - thus all of the smart tvs and settop devices supporting features like “Dialogue Boost.”

I used to notice it a lot with poorly managed concerts - the singer’s mic would get drowned out by the instruments. I guess all the people who were responsible for that moved to LA.

But now I have a soundbar and two HomePods as speakers, and still turn on subs. And that might have something to do with the number of concerts.

I know it’s unlikely that I’d find someone who shares this opinion here, but I’m really curious as to why. I don’t mean the underlying psychological or sociological reasons - it’s almost always going to boil down to misogyny. I mean their internal justification for it.

I mean, if it is advocating conformity to social norms, then what do they think k you should do when norms change? The founders of the US wore wigs, lace, stockings, and heels. European fashion was even more elaborate. The Puritans, of course, were the ones violating the norms with their deliberately conservative dress. So do they favor rebellion against the status quo because the fashions once considered masculine are now considered feminine?

As much as I disagree with them, I just don’t understand the thought process. I don’t want to dismiss it as a lack of thought (although that’s probably what we’re seeing here).

That said, I do recognize that the reason they tweet hot takes is so they’ll get shared and hopefully pull in traffic. What I’m asking is for someone who actually believes this to talk me through their reasoning.

The fact that you would consider your counterfactual a mirror image is itself problematic.

In the case of the Foundation, it supports exactly what it purports to support. They’re like the EFF and other civil rights organizations. If you consider the EFF left wing, I think that says a bit more about where you stand.

The original article was outrage-bate blog spam, with random Capitalized Words and the prolific use of “scare quotes.” It doesn’t even say anything. No charges of misinformation. No citation of law. Just “They have a Billion Dollars!!” kinds of sentences.

On the other hand, the CEO of a company - particularly a small company - lends his personality to the company. It often makes sense to co-identify them, given that the CEO has an incredible amount of influence.

So if you are saying that libertarian software project : libertarian institutions :: conservative ideas : homophobic legislation, I guess you’re just really endorsing the position of judging the company by the politicians and politics it supports. If you see prop 8 as being as fundamental to the conservative position as internet freedom is to an organization specifically dedicated to preserving internet freedom, all I can say is that I hope more people start to see it that way.