Just got around to watching it for the first time tonight. We had so many people tell us we’d love it and need to watch it, so it was high on our list. Great cast, and it won so many awards.
I didn’t hate it, but I was left scratching my head over all the hype. I like odd movies and books, so it’s not that I couldn’t handle the weirdness. It seemed like in the same vein as Scott Pilgrim, and if you told me it wasn’t a bit box office but got a cult following, I’d totally believe that.
My wife felt exactly the same way. Maybe it’s just one of those cases where there was too much hype for us, but I felt kind of let down.
Well yea downvotes are, IMO, objectively shite. Too many confuse them with “do not agree” and an excuse to not contribute to the conversation. Except, instead of contributing they cancel out someone else’s upvote.
The nail in the coffin for me about downvotes is that they’re too vague to be a useful piece of information. An upvote generally means “good”. A downvote can mean anything from “this is vile in need of moderation” to “I disagree” to “I don’t like your tone or general position” to, perhaps here with decentralisation, “I don’t like your instance”. All without any compulsion to contribute or converse. Pretty much guaranteed to foster some base level of toxicity.
There’s apparently a “controversial” sorting coming, which might help. Otherwise I’d be interested in an alternative way of flagging something as “bad” but not enough for moderation. Perhaps a requirement to actually post your reasoning for the “downvote” so that others can then upvote that if they like in a sort of meta commentary layer or something.
Or maybe something like hacker news where only relative long time users and contributors can downvote.