I was scrolling through my feed late last night, just mindlessly clicking through videos, when I stumbled onto something that actually made me put my phone down and stare at the wall for a few minutes. I won't even get into the specific details of what I saw—because honestly, it was so visceral and senseless that I don't think describing it would make anyone feel better—but it left me with this heavy, sinking feeling about where we are as a collective group of people.
It wasn't just about the act itself, though that was clearly disturbing. It was the *vibe* of it. We live in this era where everything is captured, uploaded, and broadcasted instantly. We’ve become a society of spectators, but we’ve also inadvertently become a society of performers. There’s this growing, terrifying subset of people who seem to view reality through a lens of "content creation." To them, nothing is sacred, and no living thing has intrinsic value unless it serves as a backdrop for a viral moment or a way to vent some sudden, inexplicable surge of misplaced aggression.
I find myself wondering: when did we lose the ability to coexist with the world around us without feeling the need to dominate or disrupt it? I’m not just talking about how people treat nature or animals, though that’s a huge part of it. I’m talking about the erosion of empathy in the face of something vulnerable. We see these outbursts—these flashes of pure, unprovoked cruelty—and we realize that for some people, the "social contract" is just a suggestion. They don't care about the laws, the ethical norms, or the basic dignity of a living creature because they are trapped in a loop of their own immediate impulses.
I remember when I was a kid, if you saw someone being mean to a dog or a bird in a park, the collective gasp from the people around you was almost physical. There was a shared sense of "how could you?" It felt like there was a baseline level of decency that everyone agreed upon. Now, it feels like that baseline is constantly shifting downward. It’s like we’re watching a slow-motion collapse of basic human decency, fueled by a weird cocktail of anonymity, impulsivity, and a total lack of consequences in the moment.
And then there's the digital aspect. The fact that these moments are filmed means they live forever. We are building a digital archive of our worst impulses. We’ve created a world where a person can have a single, terrible lapse in judgment—or worse, a premeditated moment of malice—and that moment becomes their entire identity, burned into the internet for eternity. It’s a strange kind of justice, isn't it? The "internet mob" often steps in to provide the punishment that the actual legal system might be too slow or too limited to deliver, but it also turns every tragedy into a spectacle.
I’ve been thinking a lot about the psychology of it lately. Is it a lack of impulse control? Is it a symptom of how disconnected we’ve become from the natural world? Or is it just that the "audience" has become so large that the individual feels like their actions don't matter, as long as they get a reaction? It feels like we are losing the "quiet" parts of being human—the parts that involve respect, observation, and just leaving things be.
I’m curious to hear what you guys think about this shift. Do you think we’re actually becoming more cruel, or is it just that we’re finally seeing the cruelty that was always there because everyone has a camera in their pocket now? Is there a way to get back to that baseline of empathy, or is the "spectacle culture" too far gone?
copperdrifter26 said:Last year. This year they cut it down—I think they're losing about 25% now—so it's easier to keep track of the guys out front. But yeah, the point still stands; all of that contributed to Vettel's spin.
mellowtiger83 said:It's blindingly obvious that if Ferrari had actually pulled off some decent tactics, we wouldn't have even seen a fight between Vettel and Hamilton!
How much time did Hamilton actually gain on Vettel during that undercut? I honestly suspect the Ferrari crew didn't realize just how much time they were gaining, especially since they had both FP1 and FP2 to figure those numbers out.
It really comes down to whether he would've ended up stuck behind someone if he had been the first one to pit.
copperdrifter26 said:Sebastian Vettel spun because of the "dirty" track. He didn't stay on the racing line; instead, he hit the gas while on the dirty part, causing the rear left tire to lose traction. That can only mean one thing—a spin.
When an F1 car is tucked directly behind another, it loses about 50% of its downforce. Since Seb was being impatient, he tried to reclaim his position immediately by flooring it while he was still mid-corner. And, well... there you have it.
Jerry Moore61 said:Whether we agree on everything or not, there is one thing I am absolutely certain about. Charles Leclerc is a once-in-a-generation talent. He is going to be a champion; it’s really just a matter of when. Who knows how this season will ultimately unfold, but what he displayed this weekend was nothing short of phenomenal. You have to hand it to him. What Lewis Hamilton told him in the cool-down room—if that's even what you call it—says everything about how the veteran drivers and world champions view him. It’s a shame he didn't take the win, but that will come. He has a long road ahead of him.
If anyone truly understands what he's going through, it's Lewis Hamilton. He lost two of his own titles because of nonsense like this.
Henry Rodriguez5 said:I have no idea what this guy is rambling about. Even for someone like me who doesn't follow Formula 1 closely, it’s obvious Charles Leclerc had the fastest lap—it’s right there on the graphics.
It is honestly incredible how much biased nonsense ruins sports broadcasts. Take some advice and just find a different stream next time.
neonfox65 said:🤦 Honestly, that doesn't really explain it. I actually noticed this specific kind of joy from the Ferrari crew too—they definitely weren't celebrating like this when Fettel won. It feels like they just couldn't care less about anything else right now.
It was Leclerc's team showing up. Of course they’re going to celebrate like that.
A new season is here, and besides a few driver swaps, everything feels pretty much the same.
Maybe the mods could set up a poll about the biggest disappointment from the first qualifying session? Personally, I think it's Sainz. He was brought into McLaren to fill the gap left by Fernando Alonso, but so far, he just looks like a cheap imitation. Then again, others might feel differently—maybe they're more disappointed by how competitive Ferrari is compared to Mercedes (who seems way better than everyone predicted), how much worse Williams looks than last year, or perhaps how unprepared Kubica seems to be.
Let's just hope the actual race gives us a bit more excitement.
Sainz had to leave Renault because they're bringing in Daniel Ricciardo, and McLaren had an open seat and couldn't find anyone better to grab. It’s likely Fernando Alonso pushed things along, too. I doubt they were the ones headhunting him.
wiredotter14 said:Since then, Intel prices have shot up significantly. Now, the Ryzen 2600 is sitting under $500, while the i5 8400 is over $667. In this specific bracket, the choice is a total no-brainer; you’re basically paying $167 more just to go with Intel for the same level of performance.
Plus, you end up paying even more for an Intel motherboard.
Timothy Kim60 said:Basically, what used to be a quad-core i5 for about $433—which was a massive best-buy for gaming back in the day—is now the Ryzen 5 1600/2600. A lot has changed since then, and if anyone tries to lecture you on it, just remember the latest issue: Intel's prices have spiked abnormally because of manufacturing capacity shortages.
If I could add one thing to that: this shortage isn't actually because everyone is suddenly rushing to buy new Intel chips. It's more like Intel got caught sleeping at the wheel and felt the pressure from AMD, forcing them to scramble and rush out a competitive new generation. They essentially put together a rushed mess, and their production lines aren't anywhere near optimized right now. That’s why there’s relatively "little" stock available and why prices are so high.
VA is fine if you’re looking at it head-on, but the second you shift your viewing angle even slightly, the colors wash out and just feel off. Personally, I'll always pick color accuracy over contrast. The latest iPhone still uses an IPS display, and the only real (though pricier) alternative is OLED, not VA. VA is mostly just a step up from those terrible TN panels. Since this is meant to be a family PC, I don't think 144Hz makes much of a difference anyway. An IPS monitor is definitely the way to go if they want to stay happy with it long-term. Given the price point, it seems like a total no-brainer.
That way you can actually enjoy a movie with better colors, without everything looking washed out just because you're looking at the screen from a different angle.
I’m just sitting here looking at how much my GTX 1060 3GB has gone up in price only three months after I bought it. It’s somehow €160 more expensive on Amazon now. Even over at Micro Center, it's costing more than $333. Honestly, don't be crazy and drop that kind of cash on graphics cards that have been out for ages.
Make sure you hang onto your receipts so you have proof when it comes time to file your taxes. I forgot to mention—though you probably already know this—that if you don't end up making a profit by the end of the year, you won't owe the government anything. So, if the game doesn't sell as well as we hope, you aren't on the hook for any payments. That's assuming Steam doesn't take a cut of the transaction itself. You should definitely double-check that.
Don't let Nadan get to you. I haven't run into any issues so far. Don't let it intimidate you; it’s really not that scary or complicated.
Just a heads up Don't forget, after a year passes, right before you have to deal with any corporate income tax, you can list the software you bought as a business expense and deduct it from what you owe. Don't spend a single cent more than you absolutely have to.😉
Oh, one more thing If you end up releasing your game on Steam, make sure to drop the link here!
Honestly, your best bet is to just head down to the IRS and ask them directly. My assumption is that you'll eventually be looking at an income tax rate (around 12%) plus some additional local surcharges (maybe 15% on top of that 12%). So, you're probably looking at roughly 14-15% total tax on your earnings by the end of the year.
The main perk of operating as an individual is that you don't have any overhead costs or mandatory payroll taxes and contributions to worry about. You shouldn't lose any student benefits or perks, because you aren't technically an employee (since you don't have a formal LLC or corporation). Besides, given how inefficient the government can be sometimes, the Department of Education probably won't even realize you're selling a game on Steam. And even if they did find out, you still wouldn't lose your rights, I'm telling you.
If you operate as an individual, you are personally liable rather than a business entity. If you had an LLC, for example, the company would be responsible for any issues, not you personally. You won't run into debt issues since you don't have any business expenses, but the only real risk is if you were to infringe on someone else's intellectual property. But if this is your own product—meaning you didn't use stolen code or rip off someone else's ideas—you should be fine.
It’s a good thing that you used free or purchased tools to build the game. Even though Steam won't (or can't) verify that, you should always make sure to use licensed software for commercial purposes. That's really the bare minimum we all need to follow.
ps Don't forget, once the year is up and before you pay your income tax, make sure to list any software you bought as a business expense to deduct it from your taxable income. Don't give them a single cent more than you absolutely have to. 😉
redpuma60 said:Are you absolutely certain that selling digital media is a permitted business activity? I’ve been searching online, but I can't find an official list of approved activities for sole proprietorships (assuming such a thing exists—I assume there must be some restrictions on what you can actually do).
Also, how much actual work goes into maintaining a setup like that, and what are the overhead costs even if there's zero revenue? Basically, what does it cost just to keep a sole proprietorship active?
Haha 😁
If you're working with Steam, you aren't operating under American laws, and this poor country doesn't have any say over your business anyway. Isn't the internet a wonderful thing? 😁 Your only obligation is paying taxes at the end of the year. And if you ask me, that’s way too much, considering the government has absolutely nothing to do with your work.
redpuma60 said:Hi everyone! This is my first time posting here, so please bear with me. 🙂
I'm an indie game developer, and I’m currently looking into how to actually sell my work. Right now, the best way to reach a wide audience (meaning, actual customers) would be to publish on Steam, which is pretty much the go-to platform for gaming. The setup process itself seems straightforward—and even easier lately—since you just pay a $100 fee, fill out some paperwork, and you're ready to go. The catch is that they require you to have a "legal entity," basically meaning you need to be registered as a business. Specifically, they ask for a Taxpayer Identification Number, a bank account, and various other tax details, while they handle the rest. I assume that to receive any revenue, I'll need to set up some kind of business structure, even though I'm not expecting a massive windfall right away—though fingers crossed that happens 🙂!
I actually ran into this exact same wall about two years ago. I spent ages scouring the internet and forums, researching LLCs and sole proprietorships, visiting the local IRS office, and talking to people, but I couldn't find anything that truly addressed my specific situation. I think it's because not many people specialize in the nuances of selling video games (selling software licenses, if I'm being technical). After a few weeks of hitting dead ends, I gave up on it, but now I'm circling back to the idea, hoping I might find better answers here.
Does anyone here have experience with this, or perhaps some practical advice? As a student who is already pretty busy with classes, what kind of legal structure could I set up to sell digital games without it becoming a massive time sink or costing me a fortune?
Maybe things have changed since I last looked into this two years ago, but since there aren't many threads dedicated specifically to selling through Steam, I'm hoping that whatever answers I get will help others down the road too.
Are you certain that a legal entity has to be a corporation? Here in the States, we have individuals and companies. So the question is, what actually qualifies as a legal entity? Why couldn't it just be an individual? The main thing is that the person is real, so Steam can verify and confirm your details—not just some fake name or a random account. Besides, Google says a legal entity is: an individual, company, or organization that has legal rights and obligations.
Based on what you wrote, it looks like they're asking for a Social Security Number. You probably don't even need to register anything. Maybe you can just sell the game. Then, at the end of the year, you just pay your taxes on the earnings. If Steam confirms that you can sell the game using your own personal information without needing a full-blown company, you should check with the IRS on how to handle the payments. It would likely just be standard income tax.
I almost forgot to mention that mercury is actually the only metal that stays liquid at room temperature. Let's not fall for those kinds of misconceptions.
Just grab some standard thermal paste and stop throwing money away. Heat dissipation isn't rocket science; you don't need to reinvent the wheel just to keep things cool.
That’s exactly why I’m asking. I remember seeing a recommendation on this sub a while back suggesting we should hold off for a few months before picking up a new GPU. The Ryzen chips just hit the market, and honestly, it feels like they're priced a bit too high right now—especially since they really ought to be offering more bang for your buck compared to Intel. Plus, everyone is waiting to see how Intel responds.
I know, I know, sometimes you just have to bite the bullet and buy it. But I'm not exactly in a rush, so if waiting a couple of months makes sense financially, why not?