u/Jumboliva

This is maybe stupid? It’s probably stupid. But I also could not mean it more when I say that my tubi experience has been damaged by a recent change.

But: I love(d) browsing tubi. I have often spent over an hour looking for a movie. I have done this with friends. As many people before me have said, their bizarre collection makes looking through it feel a lot like browsing through old video stores.

I think a big part of that is the way the “objects” that you’re dealing with are all the same size — there’s a pleasant flattening effect when Apocalypse Now is presented as an object of precisely the same type as (say) an Asylum movie about boob zombies. You are alone with a pile of choices.

Recently, the UI changed (on my tv. I know that there are many versions of the app, so I’m not sure how widespread this is. Mea culpa if it’s like, literally just for my model of tv.) It used to be that, on highlighting a movie, the background showed a preview (either still or moving, depending on setting). Now, however, highlighting a video expands the UI video object to three times its size and changes the poster picture to the preview.

I’m legitimately frustrated by this. I know that that’s silly, but: when the UI objects no longer have fixed size or picture — when they literally change completely whenever they’re highlighted — they are no longer solid objects in a way that’s analogous to video stores. It’s not really fun at all to sort through a bunch of ideas. That’s what I’m doing on the internet all the time anyway.

Moreover, it’s literally disorienting. The only reference point I have for half of these movies is the picture they just showed me, but now if I look right at it becomes something totally different. The *whole thing that I am doing* when I’m browsing is to try mentally organize the movies I’ve come across.

Anyway @tubi please give me an option to turn this off ty ilu

I have been completely surprised by the number of threads and posts on social media that take it as a given that the recent shooting was staged in order to create a reason to fund the ballroom. Yes, Trump clearly wants the ballroom, and yes, this shooting gives him pretense to fund it, but that isn’t evidence at all about the shooting itself. “If a powerful entity wants something, then something unlikely happs, and now that powerful entity is in a better position to get what they want, then we can conclude the unlikely thing was orchestrated by the powerful entity” is an incredibly weak test. On its own, that test would could affirm nearly any conspiracy, including:

“The Sandy Hook shooting was staged to create support for gun control”

“The Jan 6 riots were done by the Democrats/antifa to discredit Republican skepticism about election results”

“The government invented/encouraged COVID 19 in order to better control citizens”

Obviously none of those are true. And obviously, there’s more to support these arguments then *just* that test. But these supporting arguments are, as far as I can tell, of the same type. These are the kinds of things that you might introduce with “isn’t it strange that…” For the Sandy Hook shooting, those were things like “isn’t it strange that the people recorded after the shooting weren’t acting like it was a big deal?” For COVID conspiracies, it was things like “isn’t it strange that many scientists say there’s no way for a vaccine to be produced that fast?” And for the White House shooting, it’s “isn’t it strange that people in the room didn’t move how you’d expect them to?” and “isn’t it strange that someone said ‘be careful’ and someone else said ‘shots will be fired?’”

How does one of these things rise to the level of truth? It is very, very difficult for me to see a test you can put to the evidence that makes only the shooting an inside job, but a lot of sources/people I normally trust have done just that, so I want to give the idea a fair shake.