GoodEye8 @ GoodEye8 @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

1,165

Joined

2 yr. ago

I don't think it's even necessarily that the GPU pricing has ballooned. I think the main reason is that that every new game has to compete with pretty much every other game ever made. For example I enjoyed Death Stranding and I am interested in Death Stranding 2, but I'm probably not getting in on launch because there's a big chance I'll probably start playing Stardew Valley for the n'th time, because I feel like that's what I want to play. I'll probably play DS2 when I get the Kojima itch.

I think to answer his question precisely (if I'm understanding your correctly) is that yes, it would wipe out the COVID immunity for the COVID variant that you used to be immune to. But it doesn't matter because COVID keeps mutating into new variants and the immunity to the older variant won't help you.

But they are moral arguments, unless politics is added into the discussion. Let me give you a different example. If I believe people are entitled to the fruits of their labor then that's a moral point. If I believe the government should enforce everyone getting their fruits, that's political.

If I were to believe abortion is wrong then that can be a moral point. However if I think the government should take a stand on the matter, that's political.

Also bold of him to assume the democratic party is capable of change.

Do you not know history? That is the exact kind of attitude that doomed the league of nations. The UN exists to manage international affairs. If you start kicking out members or start demanding specific resolutions you can't manage international affairs because countries will say "fuck your org, I'll do my own thing".

My one question would be "How?"

What the hell are you doing that your hard drives are overheating? How do you even know it's overheating as I'm like 90% certain hard drives (except NVMe if we're being liberal with the meaning of hard drive) don't even have temperature sensors?

The only conclusion I can come to is that everything he's saying is just bullshit.

You give us 50% of your natural resources and we'll give you eggs (no guarantees on getting the eggs though).

I think the team orders screwed Piastri. He was clearly in the zone and he was quicker than Norris and he definitely wanted to see if he could get past Norris. When the orders came in his flow was ruined and he started to make mistakes. I get what McLaren were going for, but I think it was unfair towards Piastri. If there's ever a time to let drivers race it out in such conditions it would be the first race of the season, and McLaren didn't even let them do that.

There are upsides and downsides to everything. Open votes means it's harder to manufacture consent. That's something someone on Reddit could do, where they bot vote their own content to the top of the feed and nobody would be none the wiser because you don't know how and when someone voted. And it's not really a "could do", it's something that (at least a few years ago) happened regularly.

But on Lemmy voting is open so if someone starts up a bot farm to push their content to the top it is (relatively) easy to discover.

I've been saying for some time that the biggest reason ray tracing looks lackluster is because it's being held back by games needing to support rasterization. We've mastered rasterization which means any scene you can rasterize will look almost identical to a ray traced scene. And you don't see scenes where ray tracing would blow your mind because those scenes most likely can't be rasterized, which means they don't added to the game. So for the end user ray tracing looks kinda meh because you don't really get any significant benefits and the marginal differences between ray traced and rasterized scenes are not worth the performance cost.

It's like having a 3D engine but you can only use it for 2D games.

Brain worms: not even once.

You need to be more specific than "a child" considering he mentally already seems to be at the intellectual capacity of a 15-16 year old (except without any of the capacity to learn).

That's most likely a cloudflare proxy.

You wrote you're supporting of the kind of socialism a lot of socialists would consider capitalism, because it doesn't try to achieve socialism, it just tries to keep people happy by having strong social programs. And it's odd of you to talk about game theory when according to game theory capitalism gets more effective when those same social programs get cut and that money is used for capitalistic purposes. Capitalism is also the reason why we still have 40 hour work weeks, because any increase in individual productivity is not used to reduce working hours but used to reduce the number of workers. Why? Because the goal is profits and if you can do the same amount of work with less people your profits increase. Keeping the same amount of workers but reducing working hours doesn't increase profits so that's not a desirable outcome.

f you analyse the common forms of socialism using those, it is obvious it will always devolve into authoritarianism.

No offense, but I seriously doubt you've done any of such analysis.

The incentives between leaders and the population are too misaligned and the power is too concentrated.

So instead we should support a system where political motives are commodified and corporations sell the power to influence the political landscape (see Cambridge analytica) and corporations have such power entire nations struggle to keep them in check (see Facebook fighting with EU over targeted ads) and then there's whatever shady shit Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Boeing are doing. The USSR had a corrupt power structure in place but they still had to play the charade of appealing to the people. Part of the reason you know USSR sucked is because they had to do it publicly. Corporations have unchecked concentration of power, they can (and they do) keep their shit secret and when there are whistleblowers (like in case with Boeing) they just kill them and nobody will do anything about it because corporations can have so much power nobody can keep them accountable.

There is beef between Max and George, but it's probably not going to play a role in the championship.

Rise isn't a good for comparison because Rise was designed for the switch. Or course it's going to run exceptionally well on the Deck. It probably runs better than World, because World was designed for X1/PS4.

Edit: just to clarify I'm not defending the poor performance of Wilds, they did the exact same shit with World. I'm just clarifying that Rise performance was probably never going to happen.

As someone also from a post soviet country, don't make the mistake of thinking all socialism is the same as Leninism.

Once you come up with an economic model that both works economically and does not hand power to elected officials or some other such group,

So you'd rather support a system where the power is handed to the unelected "officials"? You can see that happening in real time with Musk effectively leading the US. Not to mention almost all forms of democracy have people handing the power to the elected government, so I really don't know what you're opposing here.

As the other commenter put it, it depends on how it's structured. There are so many ways to set up a coop I won't get into how shares affect dividends. Instead I'll use your example to show why your voting right is worth more than how the profits gets distributed.

If you're making ten bucks from your share and the founder is making a million, then the cooperative has to be okay with that arrangement. If you're collectively not okay with it then you have the power to change that. The founder can have all the shares in the world, they still have one vote. Since you collectively have the majority of votes you can simply vote to change how profits get distributed and the founder has to accept it because they don't own the cooperative, you all do.

Well yeah, but cooperatives generally avoid the possibility of buying voting power because that kinda contradicts the purpose of a coop.

Except shares don't represent the amount of ownership of a company. Everyone gets one vote regardless of how many shares they have, thus equal ownership.