Platform(s): PC (Flash)
Genre: Fighting Game
Estimated year of release: sometime in the 2000s, had a saved version with the old pink diamond flash logo
Graphics/art style: The battles took place in a white 3d box-like arena, the characters themselves were made up of white segments with a ball for the head & hands, and rounded triangles for the feet I believe, overall it was very minimalist looking. Graphical effects like the fireball or the beam attack were just drawn with simple gradient-shaded spheres, cones & cylinders.
Notable characters: There were not really characters to speak of as it was mostly a multiplayer 1v1 game and had the aforementioned minimalist graphics. (2 people on one keyboard), I believe you could customize the head of your character though
Notable gameplay mechanics: It worked somewhat like e.g. Street Fighter, you could walk forward/back, jump, light attack, heavy attack (believe it was a button hold), and guard. There was also some special input melee attacks you could do like a back-flip kick. There was also a "magic/psychic abilities" toggle, if you turned this on, you would unlock new abilities after a certain number of matches, lvl 0 was flight (double tapping up i believe, put you in a free-movement flight with legs dangling straight below you); then a fireball (hold attack, back, forward) which could be guided by holding up or down, then a "beam of pain" (?) which was similar to a kamehameha (hold attack, back, up, forward), some other moves i can't remember but i believe one was an "install" (temporary powerup). I think it was still possible to do these without unlocking the tutorial for each one.
Other details: Matches started with a 3,2,1, countdown. I don't think there was any music during actual gameplay, only during the menus if at all. When you hit your opponent or vice versa it knocked their head back kind of like physics-styled.

A few years ago i was on tiktok and saw this video that mightve been a slideshow but im not 100 percent sure that it was
It started off with a screen saying somthing about if you like or send this to someone who likes dogs and art
And then it showed an unsettling picture of a doghuman hybrid scupture thingy and it mightve been fake but it looked like it was in a tennis court and it had mangey hair and ripped up clothes i think and it was sitting down but i know it wasn't the one where the nose and ears where onto a guy or smile dog or the hairless one that kinda looks like a pig with long ears and its not the dog with the shaved head
Im sorry for not adding any punctuation at all i got a trashy keyboard mod that takes away all of the spaces if i use any special characters

A few years ago i was on tiktok and saw this video that mightve been a slideshow but im not 100 percent sure that it was
It started off with a screen saying somthing about if you like or send this to someone who likes dogs and art
And then it showed an unsettling picture of a doghuman hybrid scupture thingy and it mightve been fake but it looked like it was in a tennis court and it had mangey hair and ripped up clothes i think and it was sitting down but i know it wasn't the one where the nose and ears where onto a guy or smile dog or the hairless one that kinda looks like a pig with long ears and its not the dog with the shaved head
Im sorry for not adding any punctuation at all i got a trashy keyboard mod that takes away all of the spaces if i use any special characters

Hello, as a kid i used to play this pc game with my cousin that was christmas themed for some reason. It was only for 2 players using one keyboard, playing as characters that were red and blue fluffy balls with eyes and santa hats. You had to kill each other with many types of guns randomly appearing on the screen.
The balls always made a morbidly cute whine when shot. The background of the game was a still picture with maps full of platforms (dont remember too well) and fans and trampolines that helped you fly across the screen.
There was a christmas music playing in background, too. We got the game from a CD containing a bundle of random games around 90s - 00s, these were CDs that were being sold as a part of one czech magazine so there were around 200 CDs and about 50 games on each. So unfortunatelly i have not much way how to find the game, not remembering the name and stuff.
I remember i once found the game through google after hours of search like 8 years ago, but it doesnt seem to be that easy to be found anymore...
it was a pc game that didnt need internet connection, just a simple installation and thats it.
Id be super gratefull if someone figured out what the name was!

Hello, I am a brand new subscriber to Wordvoyance after learning about the program through an online organization that helps the blind, on a podcast that they hosted recently regarding various apps that are useful for blind users, and Wordvoyance came up when they were talking about games. Being a longtime fan of word games, Wordvoyance is great for me because up until I went blind last year, my wife and I used to play word games for the last 30 or so years. And ever since I went blind overnight last year unexpectedly, we haven’t been able to play anything competitive. And Wordvoyance is right up or rally because we used to love word games of this type. But I do have a couple questions.
Is this the best place to send feedback for Wordvoyance and braille lines? I noticed that there’s not much player activity here, but although there’s links to Facebook and discord for Wordvoyance, I don’t have account either place, and I’ve never used Facebook and I’m actually not interested at all because I have family I’d rather not interact with with their crazy ideas, ha ha. But as for discord, I cannot get past the capture requirement because I’m blind and I cannot identify the images and the text questions that they ask cause me to fail every time, so I’m either a robot or my answers just aren’t acceptable even though I think they’re pretty straightforward but regardless, I’m having an issue creating a discord account. So that makes the question. Is this an appropriate venue for posting feedback in the like because if you’d rather receive feedback, otherwise just feel free to reply to this message and I’ll check for it.
My wife and I are having a lot of fun with Wordvoyance, and I am having a lot of fun with braille lines, she doesn’t know braille and she’s very busy and doesn’t have time to learn a new game such as that or at least not to master it so to speak. But I love both and I do know braille because I’ve been learning it since very late last year ever since going blind and I’m very happy to say that I’ve memorized alphabets numbers and punctuation, but I have not yet learned contracted braille, but none of that is important And braille lines so far as I’ve seen it all. So I have a lot of fun with the game and it really helps me think about each bar character in different ways and group them differently in my head and although I already know the characters, I’m thinking about them in new ways, such as thinking oh which characters have two dots or which ones have three and grouping them all that way in my head and I don’t know it’s just like really fun practice and Getting my brain to constantly think of words in braille rather than the text that I’ve been reading visually my whole 50 years of life up until the point where I went blind overnight. Well, thank you guys for all of the work put into accessibility for these two programs believe me I really like that which is why I subscribed in the first place just a couple days ago after trying Wordvoyance out for a couple games versus the bots and then have my wife. Try it with me. so I’ll look for feedback at this point. I’m just rambling because I’m typing this via voice to text and I tend to ramble when I do voice to text because I do not yet have a keyboard that I can use with this particular device other than the screen keyboard, which is not the fastest way to communicate. Thanks for everything have a great day Later.

I'll say my theory on how Oshinoko is going to end:
Kana and Ruby Hoshino had two central dramatic questions one that Ruby would become what Ai left behind and another that Kana would become Aqua's oshi. As the manga progressed the author has opened up a number of questions, including that Kana is going to be promoted as the genius actress and that Kana wants to become a giant panda. I think the author wants to use Kana to replace the place left empty by Ai and forget her past.
Kana may not dare to confess her feelings to Aqua, or Aqua may run away from her, and through a song Kana confesses her feelings at a concert.
Also, I think Kamiki will kidnap Kana, it's something I would do as a writer to give excitement to the scene. I feel like it would be kind of like a bait and switch that he goes after Ruby but then when he notices Kana, he realises that she's important to the Hoshinos and wants to take something of value because Kana is developing into a genius star who's about to make it big. This will make Aqua go back to emo mode and go all out for her father. But, at that moment Kana will intervene saving Aqua and leaving Kamiki to suffer his misery alone.
Edit: Sorry for not mentioning more characters. I really focused a lot on Kana because I think that just like the previous arc Ruby took all the limelight to develop. I think that something similar is going to happen here, that Kana is going to have more strength in this final part. I don't really know what role the other characters will play. There might be some kind of love antagonism with Ruby, but the feeling Aka is giving me is that he wants to finish Oshinoko as soon as possible and maybe some characters won't have so much prominence. The Kamiki thing seems almost obligatory to me because Ruby has a warning that something is going to happen to her and also to have to see Aqua's confrontation with Kamiki and for that, a trigger for her to confront him. The fact that I put Kana there is because she seems to me the only one capable of putting her feet on the ground. But who knows, maybe they just kidnap Ruby and she reminds him of her relationship with Arima or both.

I've been playing this game off and on for a while, never anything serious, but over the years the game has changed so much that at this point I feel completely lost in the game.
I've always been a quester. I never got into end game raiding or PvP. After they added dungeon finder, I kinda got into that, too.
But now, I have like 10 expansions worth of questing zones. Everyone says "just skip them," but because Chromie Time ends at some point, I can't really skip them if I ever want to play them at any sort of reasonable level without making 10+ different characters.
I've tried turning off XP and that's great. I actually enjoy just level capping myself at level 30 and hanging out in old zones. But the story is so messed up. I'll get one quest that says, "thanks, Champion for retreiving this life saving widget" and then a zone later get a quest to retrive the life-saving widget. Or maybe even like "you're the hero that saved us from the Legion," but that hasn't officially happened yet in the zone I'm in - it's just a random NPC that's out of expansion order in an old zone.
I tried the "starter zone" on the island when I did try to "just skip it all" and that kicks me into Jaina's expansion. But everyone's playing Dragonflight and I can't go there until 60. So, I quest in Jaina's expansion for a bit and the questing part of me wants to finish it all.
Then there's the Classic expansions. That seems perfect! I'll just level in Vanilla and do everything, then move over to Burning Crusade! But I'm not even sure that you can move a character from one to the other. And then, I'm not sure all the stuff I did in Classic would carry over to Burning Crusade (e.g., quests, dungeons, etc). I don't think there's a way to do all of the "Classics" and then roll a character into Retail.
And now there's Panda Remix. Which feels like Diablo Seasons.
I'm so lost. I just want to do quests and dungeons (and I feel like Delves are gonna be the most fun thing ever), but I genuinely don't know how to get it all done.
If you have a recommendation, I'd love to hear it.

Okay, so. I was browsing on my iPhone, I was… well, Google searching about a character from a game I was playing to learn more about them, and there was a link to a porn site as one of the Google results… I have no idea why, I was literally just trying to find out more info about a character… but, me trying to skip it and scroll down accidentally tapped it and now I’m scared that some sort of adware or spyware, or just malware in general is on my iPhone. I really don’t want to have to resort to factory resetting since I already did that recently for another reason. But, I do have the latest iOS update and I’ve never jailbroken my iPhone, ever. I even cleared the website data and history through settings.
Should I still be worried though? My battery seems to be working fine and I’m not really experiencing any slow down, aside from a couple of times my keyboard lagged, but to me that’s kinda a normal occurrence, especially since I’m a fast typer. I know Apple takes Cybersecurity seriously, since they don’t allow AVs onto iOS like Android does, but still and again, should I still be worried about this?

My/spacebadoesn't/work!..Doesn't/matteif/I/use/any/keyboard...Something/is/wrong/at/the/OS/level...External/keyboard/and/internal/keyboard/both/don't/allow/input/of/the/space/character...However,/I/can/input/a/space/using/the/onscreen/keyboard. But this is a pain...The/on/screen/keyboard/image/does/recognize/when/the/spacebais/pressed,/so/the/operating/system/recognizes/a/space/baclick/but/doesn't/entethe/character...It/also/doesn't/work/foselecting/items/in/dialog/boxes...Within/Accessibility>Keyboard,/Full/Keyboard/Access/is/not/enabled...Any/ideas/without/restarting?

I would like to confirm if this is an issue or if the game is made like this. I have a PC version and I'm using gamepads to play. Analog sticks control the movement. But there is no variation in speed. When you slowly start to move the stick in one direction the character will stand and then all of a sudden run at full speed (which can be further increased using the boost button). My question is do the game is really like that? There is no variation in character walking speed depending on how far the analog stick is moved off the center? It feels like I'm playing on a keyboard. The controller is PS4 Dualshock. Every test program shows that the analog stick has a full range of motion so it is not a hardware issue. I tried using DS4Win or running the game under Steam controller support but the issue persisted.

CHAPTER 9
Modernity and Contemporaneity: Mechanical vs. Digital Reproduction
Our contemporary age seems to be different from all the other historically known ages in at least one respect: Never before has humanity been so interested in its own contemporaneity. The Middle Ages were interested in eternity, the Renaissance was interested in the past, modernity was interested in the future. Our epoch is interested primarily in itself. The rapid proliferation of museums of contemporary art all over the world is only one - but a very obvious - symptom of this keen interest in here and now. At the same time, it is also a symptom of a widespread feeling that we do not know our own contemporaneity. And, indeed, the processes of globalization, and the development of the information networks that inform us of events taking place everywhere in the world in real time, lead to the synchronization of different local histories. Our contemporaneity is an effect of this synchronization - an effect that time and again produces in us a feeling of surprise. It is not the future that surprises us. We are mostly surprised by our own time, which seems to us somehow uncanny and weird. It is the same feeling of surprise that we experience when we go into a museum of contemporary art and are confronted with extremely heterogeneous messages, forms and attitudes that have only one thing in common - that they happen here and now, that they are contemporary with us. This experience of the shared present as unknown and uncanny is what differentiates our time from the period of modernity, in which the present was experienced as a moment of transition from the familiar past to the unfamiliar future. There are various ways to describe and interpret the difference between the modern and contemporary ages, but I would like to analyze this difference as a contrast between two modes of reproduction: mechanical and digital. According to Walter Benjamin, the original is simply another name for the presence of the present - for something that happens here and now. Thus, analyzing our different modes of reproducing the original means analyzing our different modes of experiencing presence, contemporaneity, of being co-present with the flow of time, with the original event of time and in time, and the techniques that we use to produce this co-presence.
Mechanical Reproduction
<Pastiche/Chronological/Sexuality>
In his essay ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’, Benjamin famously assumes the possibility of perfect reproduction, reproduction that makes it no longer possible to visually distinguish between an original and its copy. Again and again in his text, Benjamin insists on this perfection. He speaks of mechanical reproduction as the ‘most perfect reproduction’, which may not alter the visual qualities of the original work of art. Surely, it is open to doubt whether the techniques of reproduction that existed at the time, or even today, ever really achieved or can achieve such a degree of perfection. For Benjamin, however, the ideal possibility of perfect reproducibility was more important than the technical possibilities that actually existed in his day. The question that he raises is ‘Does the extinction of the visual distinction between original and copy mean the extinction of this distinction itself?’
As we know, Benjamin answers this question in the negative. The disappearance of any visual distinction between the original and the copy - or, at least, its potential disappearance - does not eliminate another, invisible but no less real distinction between them: The original has an aura that the copy has not. Aura is, for Benjamin, the relationship of the artwork to its external context. The original has a particular site - and through this particular site, the original is inscribed in history as this particular, unique object. The copy, by contrast, is virtual, siteless, ahistorical; from the beginning, it appears as potential multiplicity. To reproduce something is to remove it from its site, to deterritorialize it. Reproduction transposes the artwork into the network of topologically undetermined circulation. Benjamin’s formulations are well known:

• Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its here and now, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be … The ‘here’ and ‘now’ of the original constitute the concept of its authenticity, and lay the basis for the notion of a tradition that has up to the present day passed this object along as something having a self and an identity.

The copy lacks authenticity, therefore, not because it visually differs from the original but because it has no location and consequently is not inscribed in history. Accordingly, for Benjamin photography and, especially, film are the most modern art forms, as from their very inception they are mechanically produced and destined for topologically undetermined circulation. According to this view, the age of mechanical reproduction cannot produce anything original; it can only erase the originality of the originals that it has inherited from the previous times.
Now, from today’s historic distance this claim of the essential nonoriginal of modernity seems a bit strange, because the notion of originality seems to be at the very centre of modern culture and modernist art - especially of avant-garde art. Indeed, every serious artist of the avant-garde insisted on the originality of his or her art. Artistic lack of originality - understood as imitation of the past, including the most recent past - was utterly despised in the modernist and avant-garde cultural milieus. However, the artistic avante-garde used the notion of originality in a completely different way than Benjamin used it.
Benjamin’s concept of originality is obviously rooted in the concept of nature. Not accidentally, Benjamin uses the experience of being in the middle of a splendid Italian landscape as a model of an auratic experience that cannot be reproduced without loosing its ‘here and now’. To be original means here to be inimitable, irreproducible, in fact, natural - because nature is supposed to be inimitable and irreproducible by technical means. Thus, even if Benjamin is ready to accept that nature can be technically reproduced and perfectly simulated on the level of its materiality and its visual form, he still insists on the impossibility of reproducing its aura, its inscription in here and now - its event, if you will. The relationship between original and copy is understood here as a relationship between nature and technique. And the aura of originality functions as a moment of resistance against the mass invasion of nature by the technical means of reproduction.
This appeal to nature as a source of resistance against modern commercial mass culture is characteristic of other important authors of the same period - for example, of Clement Greenberg in his ‘Avant-Garde and Kitsch’ and later of Theodor Adorno and his analysis of ‘cultural industry’. Greenberg defines the avant-garde ultimately as mimetic: if classical art was an imitation of nature, then the art avant-garde is imitation of this imitation. Thus, according to Greenberg, the avant-garde keeps the inner connection with nature - even if in a broken and indirect way - and saves this connection from the onslaught of technically produced cultural kitsch. Adorno also believes that one can find the origin of authentic art in beschadigte Natur (‘damaged nature’) and in nostalgia for a harmonious, true, original unity between man and nature - even if he asserts at the same time that such a unity can be only illusory and the nostalgia for it is necessarily misleading. Still, Adorno speaks of mimesis of nature - even if it is merely the mimesis of its Beshadigung, of its damaged status. All of these formulations are also not so different from the formulations which Martin Heidegger uses in his ‘Origin of the Work of Art’ by defining art as techne that let physis (hidden nature) manifest, present itself, but present itself in its original self-concealment, or, to use the Adornian vocabulary, in its originally damaged form. Now that means that, according to these authors, modernity could relate to originality, that is to nature, only in a negative form by demonstrating the loss of originality, of aura, of natural harmony, or of nature’s original unconcealment.
However, for the artistic avant-garde, to be original did not mean to be related to nature. Accordingly, it also did not mean to be inimitable and irreproducible in the future, but only to be historically new. The notion of the original functioned here as an expanded notion of copyright. In fact, the production of the new presupposes from the beginning its further reproduction. That is why the history of the avant-garde is among other things a history of interminable quarrels about who was the first, who created something original, and who was merely an imitator. The radical avant-garde - from Marinetti to Malevich or Mondrian - did not want to reestablish a new, if only negative, relationship to nature (understood as the loss of aura by Benjamin, or beshadigte, or damaged, nature by Adorno, or concealment of being by Heidegger). Rather, it wanted to completely break with nature in the name of the new industrial world, and with the mimesis of nature in the name of inventing new, unnatural forms of art and life. That is why the main artistic device of the avant-garde was the operation of reduction. Reduction opens a perspective on the most effective reproduction - it is always easier to reproduce something simplified than something complicated.
Inside the paradigm of modernity, which is defined by mechanical reproduction, the presence of the present can be experienced only at one moment - namely, at the revolutionary moment, the auratic moment of reduction that opens the way for the post-revolutionary reproduction of the results of this reduction. That is why modernity is a time of permanent longing for the revolution - for the revolutionary moment of pure presence between the historical past and repetitive future. It is also not accidental that this longing has found its ultimate expression in the theory of permanent revolution - in the vision of mechanical reproduction of the revolutionary moment itself.
Digital Reproduction
<Pure Subjectivity/Kairological/Seduction>
At first glance, digitalization seems to guarantee a precise literal reproduction of a text or an image and its circulation in the information networks more effectively than any other known technique, being merely a technically improved version of mechanical reproduction. However, it is not so much the digital image or text itself as the image or text file, the digital data, that remains identical through the process of its reproduction and distribution. But the image file is not an image - the image file is invisible. The digital image is an effect of the visualization of the invisible image file, of the invisible digital data. Accordingly, a digit image cannot be merely exhibited or copied (as an analogue, ‘mechanically reproducible’ image can), but always only staged or performed. Here, the image begins to function like a piece of music, whose score is not identical to the piece - the score being not audible but silent. To be heard, music had to be performed. One can argue that digitalization turns visual arts into performing arts.
But this performative character of digital reproduction means that the visual identity between the original and the copy - or, rather, the visual identity among different digital copies - cannot be guaranteed. Just as a music performance is always different from a previous performance of the same score, a digitalized image or text appears always in a new form, according to the formats and software that a particular user applies when he or she causes the digital data to appear on a screen. The visualization of digital data is always an act of interpretation by the Internet user. I speak here not in terms of interpretation of the content, that is, the meaning, of this data, but rather of the interpretation of its form. And such an interpretation cannot be submitted to any criticism, because it cannot be visually compared to the original - the original being visible. In the case of mechanical reproduction, the original is visible and can be compared to a copy - so the copy can be corrected and any possible distortion of the original form reduced. But if the original is invisible, no such comparison is possible: Every act of visualization of digital data remains uncertain in its relationship to the original; one could even say that every such performance itself becomes an original. Under the conditions of the digital age, Internet users are responsible for the appearance and disappearance of digitalized images and texts on their computer screens. The digitalized images do not exist unless we as uders give them a certain ‘here and now’. That means that every digital copy has its own ‘here and now’ - an aura of originality - that a mechanical copy does not have. Thus, the relationship between original and copy was changed by digitalization in a radical way - and this change can be described as a moment of break between modernity and contemporaneity.
We give digital data its presence by our manual work on a computer keyboard. This act involves nature, because it involves our natural body; the mechanical copy, on the contrary, is not produced manually. By clicking on the names of different files and links one calls up data that is per se invisible and gives to this data a certain form and a certain place on one’s screen. One can speak here in the Heideggerian sense about techne that the user applies to let things appear that otherwise would remain hidden (physis). In this sense, one could speak about a return to nature through digitalization, because the operation of reproduction is manually performed. And one manually produced copy is necessarily visually different from all other manually produced copies - a difference that mechanical reproduction was meant to erase. However, I would argue that the digital age does not only effectuate a return to nature, but also a return to the supernatural. We make digital files appear by clicking on their names - as in earlier times we conjured spirits by calling their names.
Now, in this way we not only make the spirits - good or bad spirits, God or demons - to become visible to them. And that is precisely what happens today when we use the Internet and call up the invisible data: we, too, become visible, traceable for the spirits that we call. The digital age is in the first place - before all other things - an age of digital surveillance in real time. Every presentation of digital data, every production of a digital copy-image, is at the same time a creation of our own image, an act of self-visualisation. Making a digital copy, I make a copy of myself, and offer this copy to an invisible spectator hidden behind the surface of my personal computer’s screen. And this is the fundamental difference between mechanical and digital reproduction. Mechanical reproduction also presupposed a certain control over its personal use. But this control was a statistical one: One could trace the number of sold copies of an item and, accordingly, the behaviour of certain target groups. In this case, the observer was the market. But as an observer, the market is too unspecific - among other things, precisely because of difficulty of distinguishing between the original and the copy and among the different copies of the same original.
Today, we are back in the realm not only of nature or physis but also of metaphysics. Actually, we are almost back to the medieval condition of total divine control. Instead of nature and theology, we have the Internet and conspiracy theory. As Nietzsche wrote in his famous ‘God is dead’ passage, we have lost the spectator of our souls, and because of that, the soul itself. After Nietzsche and during the whole epoch of mechanical reproduction, we heard a lot about this demise of subjectivity. We heard from Heidegger that die Sprache spricht (‘the language speaks’), rather than the individual who is using the language. We have heard from Marshall McLuhan that the message of the medium undermines, subverts and shifts every individual message transmitted through this medium. Later, Derridean deconstruction and Deleuzian machines of desire rid us of our last illusions concerning the possibility of stabilizing an individual message. Mastery over communication is revealed by modern media theory as a subjective illusion. This incapacity of the subject to formulate, stabilize and communicate a message through the media is often characterized as the death of the subject. However, now we have once more a universal spectator, because our ‘virtual’ or ‘digital souls’ are individually traceable. These ‘virtual souls’ are digital reproductions of our off-line behaviour - reproductions that we can only partially control. Our experience of contemporaneity is defined not so much by the presence of things to us as spectators, but rather by the presence of our virtual souls to the gaze of the hidden spectator.

I found it very clunky in the demo. I like to use the keyboard to move and and im used tapping quickly and the character was bumping into everything. Hoping maybe there will be different options in the full game? Really looking forward to playing it soon

tl;dr I'm finding Corne-life a faff - should I quit?
I'm feeling disheartened. I've had Corne v2 for about 6 months and I'm close to selling it and going back to "normal" keebs.
My logical head says ignore sunk costs and time and just sell the dammned thing.
My emotional self says stick with it (to fulfill my past, and maybe future self's dreams).
background
I got heavily into Mechboards and built a K8 with Holy Pandas. The Corne followed a year or so later.
Mechboards for me were (and still can be) a matter of hyperfocus - so I went all-in on Corne-life. The hyperfocus comes back every year or so.
I've been using the Corne 3 days a week (part time office job) and occasionally with my Steamdeck (which has no Keeb). A little emacs with Vim bindings, but mostly MS Office 365.
Setup is layers for numbers / symbols / fn keys, and homerow mods - OLEDs (doing nothing really except a logo). I have a Mouse layer but it doesn't work.
After 6 months I'd say:
pros - I like the typing experience; - I have blank keycaps so my touchtyping is great now; - hjkl navigation layer is nice; - I feel like I'm in the 90s movie hackers, especially when I'm using it with my Steamdeck and emacs.
cons - Mainly, setup (software and hardware), tweaking etc etc is a time suck. I have small kids and resent time spent "fixing" self-made problems; - Microsoft key shortcuts are a sh*t show, so I'm mousing quite a lot; - I still can't type any complicated password on the thing (OLED setup in QMK may fix thay); - the Corne has not made me some super-efficient knowledge worker genius. It has in fact probably wasted valuable work time - at the end of the day, the Corne (like my K8 gathering dust on a shelf) is just another physical posession I need to cart about, maintain, remember cables for etc etc. This is even more true when I use it with most of my computers (which have their own inbuilt and totally fine keyboards).
I know y'all aren't my therapist (I'm in the UK we don't really do therapy), but I'd value your opinions.
What is a guy to do about this first world problem?

This is just a collection of my subjective observations, but it is fun to participate in these "phases" time and time again. There's no need to take any of this seriously, it is only a piece of my humour and a sign of affection I bear toward the subreddit.

The Full Moon phase

New chapter got released. People are losing their marbles. Discussions and simps are flaming up like their prophet has spoken. Chuuya fans go look at whether he is finally in the chapter. Both Fyodor haters and Fyodor lovers jump into the comments to wage war on either side. Dazai fans find themselves in a one vs. everyone. They are everyone. Some cannot help but complain but overall the mood is positive. Speculators go feral about the theories they have kept in their pockets for over a decade. New theories are formed. The fandom is alive again.

The Waning phase

The heated fervour is starting to die down. People are posting memes, old trends, etc. This is the longest phase. Everyone looks at some cute fanart. Songs are assigned for the tenth bazillion time (can we make one on EDM or classical music please). Alignment charts and trend-based personality assessments are all the rage. Random people join anew and ask the same questions that were asked before. They get ignored. Posts become more idle in nature.

The New Moon phase

People start to complain. Either the same point is made over and over again, or the folks with unpopular opinions decide it is their time to shine. Half of the time they manage to find their people. Half of the time they don't. Then they get perforated with comments. The battles commence once more. Most of the time they have a bone to pick with the plot. And the characters. And the writing. And the fandom. Usually the format follows the same structure as saying that something is bad and then tacking on some gripe they have with either Dazai or his fans. Or both.

The Waxing phase

The discussion wars have ended and people realise that a new chapter is coming up. Theorists are putting on their glasses and preparing their keyboards. Stans and simps do the same. Someone in the back is complaining about Fyodor or Dazai and gains a few followers. The rest doesn't pay them any attention. Questions are asked once more. Half of them get ignored. Everyone is picking their personal favourite and putting in the bets, preparing to rinse and repeat the cycle once more.
The best part about this is that this happens on a monthly basis, too, so the moon analogy shouldn't even be that far off.

The macro keys were handy, I had apps on the little screen, the volume roller provided useful feedback with its bumpy rolling (I'm told the bumpy feeling is due to a thing called detentes), the back lighting came up through the key characters instead of spilling out garishly all over, and tbh it was probably the best keyboard I've used.
I would really like it if I could get a new one, especially mechanical, or even optical if we're being fancy.
Looking at the new keyboard designs, I am extremely not into them. Some of them don't even have a stop button in the media keys. What's up with that?