I’m currently wedding planning and regularly visit a wedding planning forum. I was left flabbergasted the other day when someone posted if it would be ok to ask guests to not post pictures of the couple on social media. They’re ok with guests posting pictures of themselves or of the venue and decor, they just don’t really want pictures of the bride and groom.
The response ranged from “you can ask but you can’t prevent people from posting” to “it’d be rude and inconsiderate to even ask”. One person even argued that it would be rude and other people would judge them if they went to a wedding and didn’t have a picture of the bride and groom.
I don’t think I ever felt the generational divide as acutely as in reading those responses, and I’m not even that old, I had social media when I was in high school.
This gets asked at basically every wedding I've been to in the UK i.e. there is a professional photographer, please don't take photos of the bride and groom in the church and it still gets ignored. At my own wedding, one of the guests (not even someone invited to the whole day, just a neighbour of my wife's parents who knew her growing up) is leaning out of the aisle with their phone taking photos ruining a load of photos.
It's incredibly frustrating. I also think it's really strange that when something happens in public, the default isn't to look to see if the person isn't OK anymore, it's to pull out a camera phone and start filming.
The thing I've seen at a few weddings recently is that right after the processional, they have a period of like 30 seconds where they allow everyone to take a picture of the couple, then phones away for the rest of the ceremony. I'm sure it's not 100% effective, but it does seem to scratch the itch for most people. I think also by calling such explicit attention to the rule at the beginning of the ceremony, it makes it seem ever more rude to violate it later.
I noticed you said “the whole day” I went a wedding once where the bride was from the UK. They said it was a “British style” wedding. It was almost exactly like an American wedding except that everything lasted twice as long (cocktail hour was 2 hours etc…).
I could never find out if this was a common thing in the UK or not.
I believe that it's uncommon in the USA to invite people to part of a wedding, but it's common in the UK. "Not someone invited to the whole day" implies a second-tier guest, who's been invited to the ceremony and the after-party, but not to the meal.
The ceremony is technically open to the public in any case, usually.
Usually it would be either the full day (ceremony, meal and ‘evening party’ which we commonly call the reception) or just the reception. No one is being asked to skip the middle part of the event.
Less than 20% of weddings are religious (and a smaller subset of this will be in churches), and I don’t really hear of anyone just turning up at the ceremony of someone they don’t know.
> Less than 20% of weddings are religious (and a smaller subset of this will be in churches)
That's a likely a fair underestimate because many religious marriages aren't legally valid because of various requirements that the Church of England doesn't have to follow as the state church. In Catholic churches for e.g. they need to register the building, then either appoint the priest as an authorised person or get a registrar to come to every ceremony as in a civil wedding. They do usually do this but most non-Christian religions don't bother with this at all and so the couple end up just having a civil ceremony first and the religious one after.
I've seen posts from wedding photographers who would pass around cheap/older cameras to guests. This lets people scratch the shutterbug itch while avoiding all the problems that come with a room full of people trying to get a shot.
I've been to weddings that had an "open" ceremony and a closed reception. This has generally been at a church, where the wedding itself is announced to the whole church community, but then the reception is a more limited number of family and friends.
More commonly though, I've been to weddings where they had a small private ceremony (just the couple, officiant, and a handful of family), and then a large reception for everyone in the evening.
In weddings in the U.K. (or at least in England) anyone can attend a wedding - legally they have to be open.
It’s therefore not uncommon if it’s local for more distant friends of family, neighbours, etc. to pop along to the ceremony at invitation of the couple or their parents as a result, but not to be invited to the party part. Sometimes older guests will just come to ceremony too.
That's an insane legal requirement. I'll do the legal wedding in the most unceremonious, quickest manner possible, and then have my real ceremony in privacy and not tell anyone about it.
It's largely historic these days, there's been various proposals to reform it and other mad rules (e.g. can't get married outside, can't get married after 6pm) but it's not really viewed as high priority.
They're not invited to the ceremony & wedding breakfast (which often isn't actually breakfast), just the evening reception. Unlike US weddings, the evening event is generally not the most expensive part of the affair.
It could be more that those hanging around on wedding planning forums aren't really representative of the younger generation. If it's a wish of the couple, they should clearly communicate this on the invitation.
I went to a middle eastern wedding recently and they gave everyone these phone pouches to keep their phones in that were locked for the event's duration.
I attended my first GenZ wedding a couple of months ago and they (someone on behalf of the couple) announced this request. It applied specifically to the wedding itself, not the post-wedding party (at the same venue).
Certainly the first time it had ever come up, but it made sense to me. If you're invited to someone's wedding, it's only natural to respect their wishes.
Anyone finding it rude would find themselves not only on the "formerly invited and definitely not welcome" list. But also on the "good riddance, it was nice having known you once" list.
People with such little respect for boundaries are just not welcome in my life.
Especially if they are close family I would be even more harsh about it. If my family f*ks this much with my borders, I am so getting rid of toxic assholes. I ab-so-f*ing-lute-ly not care about blood relations, when it comes to people ignoring boundaries.
I - for example - ditched every contact to my aunt after she accused my SO of being just a gold digger. At my dad's (her brother's) funeral. So no - I don't care for blood. I care for being a decent human being and treating everybody with the respect they deserve, as long as the reciprocate. If not, I treat them with the interpersonal equivalent of a killfile.
A wedding is one of the most fundamentally public events that have ever existed. The purpose is so that as many people as possible should know that these people are taken.
Asking guests to not take photos is such a faux pass that the couple has destroyed their reputation completely.
They can have a quiet and private ceremony instead if they have stage fright.
Historically at least, it's not that weddings are in public places, but that they're inherently a performance for the community. Like the reason for having a wedding is to make a commitment publicly in front of your friends and family. That doesn't mean it needs to be open to all who want to wander in, but it's strange to think of it as a secret event.
I feel like it's pretty strange (and mildly rude) to insist no one take/post photos of a wedding, and also very rude to take/post photos when asked not to.
> but it's strange to think of it as a secret event.
Not sure why you're using the word "secret" there? Something being not-public (ie invitation only) doesn't mean it's secret or hidden. It just means it's not public.
I think he was talking about weddings from historical perspective. Like, everyone needs to know the couple are married (taken) and through this public knowledge the marriage is confirmed.
Weddings held in churches have been public with nobody turned away at the door. Perhaps you are thinking of receptions, where invitations are checked, and accountants are eyeing the attendees accordingly.
An impending wedding is usually one of the most publicized events in any city. The banns must be published, typically in a special section of the newspaper. In order to give notice for anyone who may object or know about a prior bond. Also any hint of duress or urgency that may impede free consent. The banns are the actual execution of the ceremonial “callout” you see in films.
The witnesses of a wedding are not optional. The witnesses serve as representatives of the general public. Typically a clandestine wedding would be invalid without witnesses to verify and vouch for the identity, presence, and consent of bride and groom.
Taking photos for verification is sort of after-the-fact, and it would be most unfortunate for the banns to miss the mark until after the ceremony, or the consummation.
But only crazy people would consider a wedding ceremony “private” or “closed to the public” other than “renting an officiant” and flying off to a Caribbean elopement that only your billionaire girlboss bridesmaids can afford.
In the US this is generally true as well. It’s not that there will be security at the door checking invitations, but it’s be very rude to show up to a wedding ceremony you weren’t invited to.
By “Blighty” are you referring to Great Britain, or a town in NSW, population 326? That seems to be a vast difference!
And I am at a loss to imagine security guards checking invitations at a church door and giving heave-ho to the unworthy. What particular denominations have you polled on this? How many different types of ceremonies have you crashed?
I've touristed in several countries where the church was closed because of a wedding.
You are at a loss to imagine something that is extremely common worldwide. Though not "security guards". You don't need security guards, because when a little lady tells you to please come back in an hour and a half, people don't push her aside and scream "freedom!".
> And I am at a loss to imagine security guards checking invitations at a church door and giving heave-ho to the unworthy.
Especially with churches in most cases nobody will be shown the door especially as in (Christian) church tradition the wedding is before God and the community, which traditionally is the village. Nonetheless many cultures will see it as somewhat private. Especially the reception or a non-church ceremony.
Do Englishmen frequently refer to “Blighty” in ordinary conversation?
I refer to my homeland as “The States” out of courtesy to those from Canada, UK, Australia, but I had to rack my brains, and Wikipedia, about “Blighty” because it seems archaic, stilted, and arcane in a tech forum.
I’ve heard England called a lot of things by its citizens, but I was under the impression that “Ol’ Blighty” died out with Queen Victoria.
I suppose if they are comfortable with confusing foreigners with this lingo.
In all my years on the Internet and written forums, as well as watching British TV for 50 years, there has been no notable usage of “Blighty” that caught my attention.
If I had been aware of the usage, (other than archaic slang) I would’ve learned it sooner. But it’s notable that this Anglophile hadn’t been bothered until the Year of Our Lord and Reign of His Majesty Charles III, 2025.
It's still a public event even if everyone is not invited. English lacks the word to differentiate between "public" as "no secret, out in the open" and "public" as in "free for all and gratis".
In this case we're talking about a public wedding as opposed to a secret wedding.
Thus: A normal wedding with a normal amount of invited guests is one of the most non-secret events to exist.
Asking for no photos is like participating in a big sports event as an athlete and demanding nobody takes photos.
> Thus: A normal wedding with a normal amount of invited guests is one of the most non-secret events to exist
private !== secret
You seem to have this concept crossed in your thinking. Just because people know about it doesn't make it not private. Try getting into an event at Davos. Try getting into any well known event without an invitation. You'll see just how not public they are.
The fact that people think it is acceptable to post pictures of other people on their social sites says it all. This couple's request is not egregious. Just because you can't imagine not posting something doesn't mean everyone else thinks the same way. This is just another example to me of how few people think of others first, and only ever think about "me me me"
> Just because people know about it doesn't make it not private.
That's exactly what I adressed in my comment above. You're explaining to me exactly what I've explained to you.
Public can mean something which has been publicized = made known to the general public. In this case it doesn't mean that everybody is invited.
You have a very hostile tone, for no apparent reason. Feel free to blow off steam if you need to, but try at least to understand the argument I'm making.
If you only had made the argument you thought you made, but didn’t. And then not even made the effort to understand that the point your discussion partner made was actually in stark contrast to your point in the result they were arguing for.
You ended with:
> Asking for no photos is like participating in a big sports event as an athlete and demanding nobody takes photos.
A private, invite only, wedding isn’t comparable to a sports event that you described. Because this is by definition public. Why? Because anyone can buy a ticket to that event. That makes it open to the public. Yes, you need a ticket to enter. But it’s not invite only.
Imagine a big baseball/football/soccer event. The stadium is packed. Anybody can film to their liking. This is the public part. Now imagine the owners box way at the top. Not one of these humans down in the regular seats will be able to get up there. It’s invite only. That makes it private. Even if there are many people in that box.
But the owner (or in case of the wedding the couple getting married) chose who
Would be allowed to partake in that event. And so, they also get to make the rules.
If you, with your attitude would be at a private event I was hosting, you wouldn’t be there long. Because you still need to learn the difference between public (in theory anybody can attend and the host doesn’t get to choose) and private (only the host chooses who can attend).
Again, you seem to think that public/private need to be used at the same time. You can have a private event that is publicized so everyone knows it happens yet only those invited can attend. A royal wedding would be an example to keep it in the same realm as the topic. The entire planet knew when William at Kate were getting married, when it was, and where it was. If you tried to get into that event without an invite, you were turned away. If you continued to argue like you are in this thread, you'd probably be detained.
Why you think that a wedding needs a public announcement because of regulations is relevant or not is something I cannot see the point of making. It does not mean the event is open to the public. You seem to think that more words are needed in English to get the concept across, yet you seem to be the only one with the inability to grasp the concept.
I'm deliberately ignoring your diatribe on hosting events as it is totally unnecessary and brings nothing to the conversation.
The fact that the event is known about doesn't mean everybody is invited or it being appropriate to share pictures in a different public from the event.
Let's take some specific events: Weddings of British royalty. A simple peasant can't simply walk in and take a seat at a front row of Westminster Abbey, despite being the probably most public wedding.
Or other related example: When they televised the coronation of Elizabeth II the coronation was extremely public event, probably the most public event of that decade, however the actual moment where the crown was put on her head was purposly hidden from cameras behind the bishops robe for spiritual reasons.
And then consider: Weddings are often extensive celebrations, which take long, with lots of food, lots of alcohol. Many chances for unpleasant photos. Those who were there saw it, but a different public doesn't need pictures of drunk uncle Bill and the bride doesn't want the most public picture of here wedding to be the one where the dress isn't in order.
You continue to argue that I'm saying the exact opposite of what I've said. Are you arguing only for the sake of it?
> It does not mean the event is open to the public.
I have never said any such thing. It is public in the sense that it is publicized, as I've now mentioned countless times. The word "public" also means something that is "official" and out in the open. It doesn't always mean that it is something which the general public is invited to attend. A good example is the one you gave on the royal wedding. All weddings are public weddings in that very same sense.
> You seem to think that more words are needed in English to get the concept across, yet you seem to be the only one with the inability to grasp the concept.
Clearly there are more words needed, since you continue to understand the exact opposite of what I'm saying.
> Why you think that a wedding needs a public announcement because of regulations is relevant or not is something I cannot see the point of making.
"It's still a public event even if everyone is not invited."
You are not stating the same thing. You are saying that an invite only is not a private event. You've apparently misread the bit you quoted as it is a double negative; "> Just because people know about it doesn't make it not private". Just because people know about a private event does not mean the event is public. Knowledge of the event is not what makes it private. What makes it private is the host's restriction of who can attend.
Also, I'm not hostile. You're being defensive on an indefensible position and not liking the fact you are being called out for that position. There's a difference.
The traditional purpose of the wedding was meeting and joining of families. The "as many people as possible" knowing about it was not a consideration all that much.
> They can have a quiet and private ceremony instead if they have stage fright.
There's definitely very huge cultural differences that might be getting in the way here. Many wedding traditions explicitly invite all and sundry to attend and witness. Most historical traditions around weddings that I'm aware of treat them as a community event at the very least, not a private affair involving only two families.
Clandestine weddings have presented a huge problem for Church and State authorities at various points in space and time.
A clandestine wedding would often leave significant doubt about the facts of the ritual, the participants, and their actual state of mind. In most places it really is not legal to conduct a clandestine wedding without strict regulation and some sort of documentation, before and after the fact.
No officiant: invalid. No witnesses: invalid. Prior bond: invalid. Duress or coercion: invalid. These are all really, really important reasons for public ceremonies attended by, essentially, randos off the street.
It seems to be that there's a very strange crowd hanging out on Hacker News, who are not aware of very basic social rules. Those include not trying to impress strange rules on guests you invite to an event. Because people will simply make excuses and not come to your wedding or whatnot.
Part of becoming an adult is understanding that events such as your wedding or your birthday, or even just having guests over for dinner is something you do for tradition, and for your community of family and friends. You do it for other people, for hospitality. It's not your chance to finally be the boss and tell everybody what to do.
But I guess it is 2025 and all social conventions and customs of polite society has been thrown out?
> Those include not trying to impress strange rules on guests you invite to an event.
I think you will find it is both good etiquette and very common to make polite requests ("rules") of guests you invite..... whether these be to 'bring a bottle', 'smoke outside', 'wear black tie', 'wear your birthday suit' or 'don't film us'.
How are they different? It appears you agree that if one does not like the rule they should not go. At the same time my impression is that you still want to go but dislike the rule.
I think its that the rules they agree with are okay, and everyone should agree with that. The one rule they disagree with isn't okay. We're left to guess which rule isn't like the others. I personally would find it very strange to be asked to show up in my birthday suit.
Wedding photographers often ask people to refrain from taking photos during the ceremony. It sucks to have every photo that you hired a professional to take have a sea of people holding up cell phones so they can each take their own photo. In this case it's not rude to request that people not take images, it's a practical matter so people can have photos of their wedding instead of photos of people taking photos of their wedding. Much of this wouldn't be necessary if people could just be present at events instead of rigorously chronicling their every experience.
I'm not familiar with this old and cherished tradition of each guest taking photos and videos of a wedding they attend, in order to show them off to anybody who will look in exchange for reputation points.
Your idea of a polite society sounds rather rude to me.
Okay? Most of my friends don't take videos and post them on the internet when I invite them around for games, or a nice dinner, or a birthday. If they started to I would ask them not to come, or invite them on the condition they don't do that. If they don't come because they have to do that constantly, and I don't want to participate I'm not sure what I'm losing.
Lets replace take videos with something maybe more obviously offensive to most people:
Most of my friends don't insult my mother / wife / husband / partner when I invite them around for games, or a nice dinner, or a birthday. If they started to I would ask them not to come, or invite them on the condition they don't do that. If they don't come because they have to do that constantly, and I don't want to participate I'm not sure what I'm losing.
I personally find not respecting my privacy preference in my home pretty darn insulting.
Also people have been having friends over for dinner 100x longer (probably much longer, but I'm just going with how long things have been written down) than video recording has existed, so I'm unsure what traditions you're trying to uphold.
Also I have guests over for dinner because I enjoy their company, not tradition.
> It seems to be that there's a very strange crowd hanging out on Hacker News, who are not aware of very basic social rules. Those include not trying to impress strange rules on guests you invite to an event. Because people will simply make excuses and not come to your wedding or whatnot.
Are you genuinely suggesting that there is a basic social rule that says no other rules can be impressed on guests at an event? I don’t think that stands up to scrutiny.
Every event has rules — it’s inherent in being “an event” as opposed to pure chaos. Whether or not the rules are strange is open to individual interpretation. If you can’t abide by the rules of an event you are not welcome at the event. People’s polite tolerance of others’ anti-social behavior does not mean the behavior is welcome.
Your comment is confused as to you believing that people would want to come to events with strange rules and not follow those rules. What happens in real life is that people decline to go to those events. Everybody knows how to behave at a wedding and what is proper conduct.
> Are you genuinely suggesting that there is a basic social rule that says no other rules can be impressed on guests at an event?
Absolutely, in the case of strange, unusual rules. If you're invited for dinner to somebody and they ask that you oblige to things which are outside of the norm, would you be very keen to go? Or would you make up an excuse and do something else?
It seems you are trying to say "You're not welcome here!" to people who already declined an invite?
> It seems you are trying to say "You're not welcome here!" to people who already declined an invite?
These things are not mutually exclusive.
If you don’t want to abide by the rules, you are not welcome and you should decline. Perhaps the organizer isn’t aware of your preference and your declining helps inform them. If they prefer your presence more than they like their silly rules, they might change them.
Deciding to attend a social gathering where you intentionally ignore the rules that you don’t like is narcissistic and rude behavior.
It's really not about this. Many (most?) people don't want to go to events where the hosts are acting weird against their guests. When it comes to weddings, it's not unusual that you haven't seen the people for several years. And in that time people change.
> Deciding to attend a social gathering where you intentionally ignore the rules that you don’t like is narcissistic and rude behavior.
That's why I've said now about fourteen times here now, that people are going to decline an invite to events with strange "rules". For an adult the normal thing is that events you are invited to do not have any rules at all, because everybody already knows exactly what is appropriate. So real people have a low tolerance for those kind of things. If you're looking for "narcissistic", then maybe look at those people inventing strange rules for what is supposed to be their friends and family?
Maybe it is because HN is a forum for people who work in very corporate settings and are accustomed to having to follow a lot of silly rules without the option to decline?
I think everyone agrees that some rules for guests are fine, and some are silly. "No flash photography or leaning into aisles during the wedding procession" is a reasonable rule, "No taking photos when we're dancing and having fun" seems silly to me.
Just like a dress code for a wedding is fine, but if they said "also you need to wear blue cotton underwear" I'd think that was a bit inappropriate to require.
It's a result of the law and the state taking the place of morality and ethics. If it is against the law it is bad and wrong. If it is legal it is OK and good.
A large component of society has no particular code of ethics, religion, or internal moral framework. End result is if it's legal I can do it, and I shouldn't feel bad for doing so.
>> Asking guests to not take photos is such a faux pass that the couple has destroyed their reputation completely.
The day is not about you. Just like people are free to exclude children from weddings, if they ask you not to take photos and you take umbrage at that, you need to take a hard look at yourself. It's. Not. About. You.
I think this is a strange and very modern conception of weddings. Weddings are not just about the bride and groom; they're about the bride and groom and the community of their friends and family. That third part is a key component! It's why we invite people to weddings, so they can witness and help the couple in making and keeping the commitment of marriage.
True, of course, but they're the ones spending a fortune on it. Not only so they can have a memorable day but so their guests enjoy it too. Seems fair that if they ask you to do something really really easy like not take photos, you do that.
Almost every couple manage to arrange their wedding without any unusual rules and demands. So most people seem to have taken your advice at heart. My advice to you is trying to make your argument without tired and boring insults such as "take a hard look at yourself". People have different opinions and perspectives, you can only accept that.
I've never made any strange rules for guests when I host, and I've politely declined the very rare cases when I've received such an invite. Because I know it's not about me.
You're free to dislike the request of the couple. I have no argument with that. People can be over the top. But I can't imagine skipping the wedding of someone I care about because I don't want to adhere to a simple request like not taking photos.
Not having touched Silksong yet, I'd recommend playing the Hollow Knight first. It holds up really well and is absolutely worth a play through. I think sometimes a sequel releases and it makes the original feel hard to go back to, if it's added new features or quality of life things. If I were in your position, I think having the "uncontaminated" experience of Hollow Knight is worth it.
That is, unless you really want to feel like you're part of the conversation these first few weeks after Silksong comes out.
I love regional pricing. I can get this game for $4.99 (and maybe an extra offer if it ever has). But I already bought it on the Nintendo eShop for $0.15, so I will play it on there. As I previously said, I LOVE regional pricing.
> I also think even without the medication the diagnosis is worth it.
Yeah, I think our society views so many symptoms of ADHD as the worst type of personal failings, so I think there's a level of trauma associated with growing up undiagnosed and being consistently blamed and shamed for things that were out of your control. Even without medication, getting diagnosed was, for me, the first step towards healing and starting to unpack all that shame.
I think especially as adults (esp. people that managed to get to adulthood without being diagnosed), a lot of people think they don't have certain symptoms, when really they just have developed elaborate systems for managing those symptoms.
I never related to "time blindness" because I was always consistently early for things, but really I was just deeply anxious about being on time for things. I would set like 10 alarms set, I wouldn't be able to do anything for an hour or two beforehand because I was worried about being late, and I'd usually show up way too early because I couldn't actually estimate when I needed to start getting ready to be on time. That doesn't exactly sound like the behavior of someone with a functional inner clock.
Yeah time blindness is my arch nemesis… but it has led to some pretty serious grit and persistence for difficult things under pressure. You need me to start on an arduous, long, difficult task right this second? No problem. You need me to do something on February 23rd 2027 at 4:30am in Anchorage Alaska? Should be fine as long as I’m still using the same calendaring system then. You need me to chip away at a background task steadily for two weeks? I hope you really mean you need me to work on other neat cool things for 13 days, panic, and stay up all night getting it done. (Apparently adrenaline is great for focus, too)
A few years ago, at least in my field, there was definitely a trend of people at least doing twitter threads explaining the key findings of their papers. It's obviously less in-depth than a blog post would be, but it was still usually a far more accessible version of the key ideas. Unfortunately, this community has basically dissolved in the last few years due to the changes in twitter and to my knowledge hasn't really converged on a new home.
If you like codenames, you might also enjoy decrypto [1], it scratches a very similar part of my brain. There's a set of secret words, and the codemaster needs to give clues that are specific enough that if you know the secret words, you can make the connection, but vague enough that you can't guess the secret words.
Null hypotheses are often idealized distributions that are mathematically convenient and are often over-simplifications of the distributions we'd expect if there were truly no effect (because the expected distributions are either intractable to work with, or irregular and unknown).
So for example, suppose you want to detect if there's unusual patterns in website traffic -- a bot attack or unexpected popularity spike. You look at page views per hour over several days, with the null hypothesis that page views are normally distributed, with constant mean and variance over time.
You run a test, and unsurprisingly, you get a really low p-value, because web traffic has natural fluctuations, it's heavier during the day, it might be heavier on weekends, etc.
The test isn't wrong -- it's telling you that this data is definitely not normally distributed with constant mean and variance. But it's also not meaningful because it's not actually answering the question you're asking.
If you haven't already, you should look into some stretches for tension headaches. For me at least, they don't make the headache go away completely (because often dehydration is a factor as well), but they sure take the edge off.
I feel like if the university has an issue with it, this could all be fixed by just adding course waitlists. Which is how it was handled at both my undergrad and grad university
A Dark Room (https://adarkroom.doublespeakgames.com/) is fantastic as well. It's not only a clicker/idle game, but it incorporates the mechanics in an interesting way.
On the whole, I've had to adopt a policy of not even touching clicker games. I find them incredibly addictive, and most of the time I'm not even enjoying the experience or getting anything out of it, I just feel hooked. I'd say Universal Paperclips and A Dark Room were exceptions to that, in that they actually had some depth, strategy, discovery, or story. But even those two I've had to stop myself from replaycing.
I'll play Universal Paperclips once a year or so when I remember it exists and have nothing I need to do for the next 3-6 hours. So I'd add that as a warning to anyone who wants to check it out: make sure your next 6 hours are ok to spend on it, in case you get sucked in.
(Late reply, but) I got to play this over the weekend together with some other suggestions in this thread, and Dark Room was actually pretty good! Thanks for the recommendation.
There's a whole combat and map system that's hidden away initially. A lot of the progression really wants you to do that but it's hidden away at first so it's not obvious.
The response ranged from “you can ask but you can’t prevent people from posting” to “it’d be rude and inconsiderate to even ask”. One person even argued that it would be rude and other people would judge them if they went to a wedding and didn’t have a picture of the bride and groom.
I don’t think I ever felt the generational divide as acutely as in reading those responses, and I’m not even that old, I had social media when I was in high school.