GoodEye8 @ GoodEye8 @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

1,165

Joined

2 yr. ago

That was a balancing patch. It used to be that bishops could only see only 2 squares and could jump over like horses.

Maybe she was taught the "when mommy and daddy really love each other" way of getting pregnant.

No idea what you want to say in the first paragraph. I understand that you think it's toxic to have a different opinion? Pretty sure that's not what you meant.

I most likely misunderstood what you were saying so we had a miscommunication. I don't think the miscommunication is particularly relevant so I'll leave it at that.

There is a big difference between corporations and people. Bigotry against people cannot compare to bigotry against corporations. And then there's a difference from that to an industry. Most notably there's something called "industry standard" which (most often) the market leader sets and the competition copies in an attempt to catch up. To resist this means to potentialy lose money, something only few companies want or tolerate.

There is a difference between corporations and people, but the underlying fallacy is the same. If companies A, B and C are bad it doesn't mean all the companies from D to Z are also bad. And industry standard doesn't mean every company will follow the industry and industry standard doesn't guarantee making money. We have a lot of examples of companies following the industry standard and flopping hard, and we have examples of companies that don't follow the standard and are wildly successful.

I can recommend searching for Cory Doctorow's idea of "Enshittification" to get an understanding why companies might use costumer favourable policies at their beginning which they revoke in favor of more money later. It's what made Amazon big, or Facebook. I'm sure you won't, but there might be readers of this dialogue that might be interested.

I'm well aware of enshittification and I completely fail to see how that's relevant in this particular instance. In fact your entire premise of "they might add it later" makes no sense because literally the best time to have DRM is at launch when the potentially demand is the highest, and once your game is pirated the cat is out the bag and adding it later makes very little sense.

No, I don't know Saber's internal politics toward this, and no, I don't share your chipper attitude towards their intentions.

That's fine.

I do recognize they were nice to their customers, which is a good thing. But they were recently acquired by Beacon Interactive which doesn't even have a wikipedia page. The future remains unclear. I don't know where their path will take them, neither do you. You trust them at your own risk.

Beacon interactive was founded by the co-founder of Saber interactive for the purpose of buying out Saber from Embracer. That was literally the second result (the first one was a completely other company called Beacon Interactive Systems) on DDG if you searched for Beacon interactive. Google has the article a bit more downward as most suggestions are about that other company but in the top results are Saber interactive wiki page that has the exact same information. I can only assume that you did a search just to confirm your "company bad" bad and didn't look any further because it took just a nudge more effort to find out that Saber interactive is effectively an independent company.

But I guess it doesn't matter because you automatically assume company bad, so it's not like that is going to change your mind.

If you come from Windows Mint is an excellent starting point. People shit on it because it doesn't have all the fancy bells and whistles you get with more latest releases, but on the flip side it's super reliable and as a new user that reliability is worth more than all the bells and whistles.

What? The leds that go in the bulb sockets take 3W so the RGB ones going into the case probably take like 1.5 to 2W. RGB led strips seem to take 8W per meter. We're talking about 5m of led strips and 25 individual lights and still not hitting 100W.

I don't put RGB in my cases so I don't know what the trend is. If it's to turn your PC into a Christmas tree then I can understand 100W not being enough.

It is incredibly toxic, do you think that I do that? Over a “Why the over specific denial”?

But you did. Everyone else was either optimistic or "yeah, whatever" about the statement, only you went "there must be something wrong with the statement". You are literally the only person in this thread questioning if it's genuine.

It’s a lived example of the “one bad apple spoils the bunch”. There are quite a few bad apples in the publisher space, some on the developer side. Do normal people just not recognize patterns in an industry? Are normal people apathetic about how an industry treats them?

This is how bigots talk. "Some black people are bad people so I will treat all black people as bad people". "Some immigrants are bad people so all immigrants are bad". "Some young folk are lazy so all young folk are lazy". etc.

People notice patterns, as I pointed out with Ubisoft and Blizzard and EA. But people don't make sweeping generalizations based on those patterns. Just because Ubisoft is shitty doesn't mean we should be questioning everything Larian says. The problem isn't skepticism, the problem is that you're making huge generalizations to then be skeptical which leads you to make unfounded criticism.

I'm just going to repeat what I said. Normal people don’t go “but what if they’re lying” any time something is said. They do it when it's the same entity doing the saying, like if Ubisoft said they're going to try something different normal people wouldn't believe then, but normal people don't generalize everyone. Just because Ubisoft or EA or ActiBliz has told lies doesn't mean EVERY developer tells lies. It's incredibly toxic to think everyone is lying.

Still, this is just the nature of being an F1 team principal. Bitch and moan about any aspect of other cars that you can.

That's F1 manufacturing competition in a nutshell. Everyone looks for loopholes in the regulations and when someone finds something others bitch and moan to see if they can shut it down without needing additional developments on their own part.

Actually I found it pretty disturbing that you'd make shit up just to throw a shade, so I'd consider the concern genuine even if poorly communicated.

Seriously, normal people don't go "but what if they're lying" any time something is said.

Have you considered taking therapy? Because you're literally making up shit to hate on a game, it's not healthy.

You mean the "at launch" part that the writer added to the article and isn't a part of the official Saber statement? Something you'd know if you read the article past the introductory paragraph?

"Will this game have DRM?"

"No."

"Why are you overly specific?"

Yeah, it's definitely more of a case of being just unlucky because it's not a common issue with the dock. Took me quite a while to find that wire trick.

I think Steam Deck is great and a huge impact on both Linux gaming and handheld gaming. My only gripe with the Steam deck is trying to use it in docked mode. I'm not sure if it's the TV or the official dock but the only way I could get it working is when I disconnect all the wires from the dock and then connect them in the right order. I think it was 1) connect deck to the dock 2) Connect HDMI to the dock and finally 3) connect power to the dock. If I don't connect it the right way the signal from the dock to the TV gets fucked up and I either get some really crappy resolution that doesn't even get properly aligned, weird almost white noise or just straight up black screen. Not really a big issue for me since I mostly use the deck when away from home, but it still that using it at home is such a hassle (at least for me).

At no point did I say Ukraine shouldn't get what it needs to end the war. What I said is that we shouldn't let Ukraine get away with the same things Russia is doing. If for example Ukraine would gas the Russian front line we shouldn't be "well Russia did it first". Chemical warfare is not acceptable. Turning a blind eye towards atrocities is how we got Isreal.

The other guy is pretty much saying it would be okay if Ukraine dirty bombed Moscow because he is literally implying we should kill all Russians.

I would rather say we should make it illegal to do things that cause an inordinate amount of suffering to animals. I would prefer not to kill the dog either, but since most people in this thread seem to believe a vegan diet with supplements is impossible for carnivore pets, what other option is there?

I don't think it's impossible but I do think it leads to the suffering of pets because most animal owners aren't capable of taking care of their pets right now and they'll be even less capable when they need to follow a relatively strict diet for their pet.

However If I had someone who would pay someone else to torture 1 animal a day, and then eat it, meaning ~30,000 animals would be tortured throughout their life, and I have no way to make them stop besides killing them, what is your proposed solution? I want to hear the non utilitarian answer to this problem, in this hypothetical where killing them is the only way to stop the behavior.

About that specific person? You do nothing. You can't force people (or animals) to live a different life. What you want to do is get a societal shift. Educate people so they'd willingly switch and over time (if it's reasonable and I do think going more vegan is reasonable) society will shift away from eating animals and those people will disappear with time.

You’ve baked in that the only options are “kill people who eat meat” or “do nothing.” In a situation where all humans were strict carnivores, that’s a much harder question.

If would argue if humans were strictly carnivorous the question would be much easier, because then eating meat is our nature and we would die if we went vegan. The reason we (and dogs) can go vegan is because from a dietary perspective we're both omnivores. For example with cats there's no question, they're biologically not adapted to plant based diet. Their entire diet would essentially be supplements and they get next to nothing from eating plants.

Obviously I would hope to have legal or social consequences for people who eat meat.

The most “moral” thing to do would be for vegans to make it impossible for factory farming to exist,

I guess if you don’t value animals at all, you would never kill the person.

And these are the examples why I have a problem with Veganism and why I think Vegans like you are a detriment towards people going more plant based with their diet. Because you're all about moral superiority, absolutes, guilting others for their lifestyles and assuming the worst. You won't change peoples mind if you call them a piece of shit. You also won't change their minds by not compromising on anything. And this "all change must happen instantly because we demand it" message is just childish behavior.

If you're serious about getting people to eat less or no meat you can't expect instant results. You need to let people change their minds instead of trying to force them to change (and that includes trying to guilt them into changing). Also you can't change everyones mind but you need to change enough to for society to change over time. It's a process and it needs to be treated like a process. Don't force people, educate when you can and hope people change. After-all (hopefully) nobody forced you into becoming a vegan.

Ah the utilitarian approach. You're just one species away from saying it's okay to kill people because most people eat meat. Afterall the math problem is exactly the same for people, except people eat even more meat so from a math point of view it's even more logical to kill a person than a dog. I'll walk you through this conundrum.

You can choose to say it is okay to kill people who eat meat and good luck talking about the ethics of killing people.

You can choose to say it's not okay to kill people, but now you're not treating life equally because now a human life is worth more than the dogs life. So what's stopping me from saying that the the dog is worth more than the 4 animals who get killed?

And if you want me to prove the dog is worth more than the animals I'll just ask you to prove that a human is worth more than the dog. If you can't prove that you're back to saying it's okay to kill people.

You can't solve this problem through utilitarianism and then talk about ethics because utilitarian solutions often end up being unethical.

Go learn history. This "we must show them" mentality is how after WW1 Nazis got into a position of power. And no, we didn't kill all of them. Some were sent to the Hague, most were picked up by the US (unsurprisingly US now has a fascism problem) and the rest (the wider population) got collectively guilted out of nazism. Oh and we made sure Nazi and Fascist are so bad words that actual Nazis and Fascists use them in a derogatory way to not associate themselves with that word.

The idea that we should ruthlessly kill Russians because Putin is a horrible person is Lemmygrad level of idiotic.

So the ethical thing is to send my dog into the wilds to die? Or have it turn into a stray dog gang with all the other dogs "ethical" people let go, and then kill them because they become a menace to society? Or is the ethical thing to let them eat us?

You missed the point. The point the other guy made is that for the past 50+ countries have turned a blind eye to Isreal not playing by the rules and that has let Israel become more and more ruthless to a point where they're the ones effectively committing genocide. Maybe Ukraine won't turn out like Israel but is it really the door we want to open?

Just because Russia is getting increasing more violent and inhumane doesn't mean Ukraine should follow the same path. Nobody is saying Ukraine shouldn't defend itself (or fight on Russian soil), we're just saying we shouldn't turn a blind eye if Ukraine starts shelling humanitarian corridors, chopping off legs of prisoners, gas striking the front etc.