Hylactor @ Hylactor @sopuli.xyz

Posts

0

Comments

299

Joined

2 yr. ago

To whom it may concern: Bennett is involved with a new upcoming game called Baby Steps. It looks sort of QWOP-ish. It's worth watching the trailer if you haven't.

"you just waited patiently at a traffic signal behind a soldier driving a Hemi !!!"

"You just merged onto the freeway behind a soldier driving a Hemi !!!"

"You just momentarily shared a roundabout with a soldier driving a hemi !!!"

"You just got served coffee at a drive through after a soldier driving a Hemi !!!"

"If you happen to be a soldier driving a hemi, that means a soldier driving a hemi is driving behind a soldier driving a hemi !!!"

I left Reddit to call their bluff. I stay away from Reddit because I want to help grow the fediverse. It's already better than when I joined. And I believe, perhaps naively, that it will continue to get better. I'd rather be the part of the beginning of something great than lingure around as a great thing rots.

Why am I seeing a video of chinchillas?

Dishonored 2 took me hours upon hours to get to run properly due to some sort of processor, gfx card, driver, directx, zodiac sign, poltergeist , whirlpool of death that I couldn't ever seem to conquer. After absolutely decimating my computer, reinstalling every, and I mean EVERYTHING, windows, drivers, firmwares, replacing ram, sacrificing goats, it fiiiiiinally ran. The trouble shooting portion essentially ruined a week or two of my life, but once it was running I had a great time. That game is the bomb.

I wish that I could get it to run in ultra wide in some convenient way. I remember liking the game straight up, and was always a little perplexed by the fan base beef. Mods seem like it could really kick it up a notch though.

I would very much appreciate if a wonk can swing in and layout all the subsidies this guy/Nebraska benefit from.

I use a Kobo. It has a few warts, but its great overall. Software is definitely the weakest link.

Politicians should always "buy votes" by acting in the interest of their constituents. The vote "buying" that should really concern you is called lobbying (see: citizens united), or in some cases outright bribery (see: Justice Thomas; also see: Trump literally selling pardons), or in some cases corruption to point of loss of life (see: the entire Iraq war and surrounding sweatheart contracting deals).

In summary: investing in the future by supporting education: good.Dismantling the EPA for short term political gain at the expense of multiple generations worth of irreparable harm: bad.

Or maybe he is too busy giving children cancer? Or maybe trapping children under rubble with the decaying remains of their family? Or maybe watching a child's organs fail from malnutrition? Or maybe god is listening to their Spotify playlist "mating calls of the last of their species"? Or perhaps they're watching their favorite reality tv show "active shooter event", new episodes every week.

Probably not though. Who has time for such trivial concerns when there are more important issues in this world like who people like to kiss and what genitals they prefer.

Perhaps it's not the right to harm ones self that's the issue. Should you have the right to manufacture, sell, and profit from harm to others? Be it environmental, oral health, lung health, or heart health, cigarettes are a net negative to any citizenry. Seems in a governments best interest to try and greatly reduce and/or eliminate this leech.

It could be interesting to cut all the movies into even pieces making one movie with the average runtime of all of them and see if it's cohesive.

Yes, because there are no extrajudicial killings in any prisons.

It's me; I'm the person. I will clarify my stance. But focusing on my individual personal motivations and disregarding my overarching observations seems a little goal post manipulatey too. Even if my personal motivations fail to meet your scrutiny, the facts I present still remain: we are harming our planet, we are harming animals, and we are harming ourselves by eating meat. Which seems counterproductive at best and ripe for improvement. We can and should advance beyond this unnecessary and harmful indulgence. At the very least, we should consume a very small fraction of what we currently do.

Though I am a vegetarian, I used to eat meat. I acknowledge that it's delicious, and I miss it sometimes. But I don't eat it because I've determined that it would be logically inconsistent of me to do so.

In a vacuum I don't think the "wrongest" part about meat is the moral/ethical implications of killing an animal to eat it. But I'm not talking about subsistence meat consumption here. Because that's not how we eat meat on a human race scale anymore. We churn it out at disgusting scale. Imparting suffering and pollution into the world. We eat it primarily because we like it. And we eat too much of it because we are gluttonous. If your uncle shoots a buck with his bow and arrow, and make some summer sausage of it, I'm not really perturbed by that. I don't love it, but I'm fine with it. Now, if your uncle gasses 10,000 chickens too fat and atrophied to stand, and heaps them into a pile and burns them, because the flock has an outbreak that exists solely due to our habitual over crowding of hellish enclosures, now we've got problems.

That being said, my personal chief concern is environmental. The scale at which we produce meat, and the methods we use to produce it, are completely untenable and are inconsistent with continued life on this planet. In 50 years we will have another 3 billion or so people on the planet, and we're already operating way beyond our means with our current population. We need to change our habits or die.

My third priority is health considerations. This is probably my weakest argument, because eating meat isn't imperically unhealthy. But again, we as humans don't just eat meat from time to time, most of us are eating it every god damned day. We're going to a wing joint and hoovering up 15 chickens worth of wings without even thinking about it. But even if people stop packing their colons with gristle and turning their blood to paste with double bacon cheeseburgers with bacon and a fried egg, they'll find some other garbage to eat. We don't value healthy living in my country which is a whole nother issue beyond the meat thing.

I've considered when a word is no longer "made up".

There's always some enlightened centrist claptrap about "all words being made up", which I think even they know is pedantic and not really a solution.

Then you have the Websters who intentionally annoint words prematurely, I'm certain for marketings sake. Every year they get some free press about adding surprising words. I don't really know who buys dictionaries on a regular basis, but someone must, so they must want to appear modern and get some free advertising while they're at it. In Short, you have early adopters who want to appear hip, and that seems wrong, too.

Finally you have the hard-ass who doesn't want anything new added. In my experience these people just get off on gatekeeping and pearl clutching. They don't think that slang is worthy and they want to be part of the ingroup who decides which words are "real". In these peoples opinion, if they're being consistent, words like "legit" shouldn't be a word, it's just slang for legitimate. So that seems wrong.

I think the only answer is perhaps time. I feel like a word needs to live as long as the average person before becoming "official" (whatever that means). Like, who knows if in 79 years "bussin" will still be a usable word. But then again, useable by whom? If the issue with slang is that it's too new and therefor only understood by a narrow group of people, can't the same complaint can be applied to highbrow difficult words that are only understood by the overeducated? Or technical words in niche areas of understanding? Can you really say that more people can define metempsychosis, or kentledge, than can define edgelord, or doggo?

But even my time argument fails. Because what's the harm in adding words? We aren't bound by any space limitations or something. We don't run out of "word slots" and once they're all used we're stuck forever.

Long story short, I don't know what the answer is. But I do know that horsefeatherses isn't a word.

The thing we can't say is that we didn't know better.

The thing about civilization is that ideally it advances. If 200k years is the sample size you wish to view, houses are fairly new. Plumbing is newer than houses. Insulation even more new. Fire safety and building regulations even more new still. Asbestos was new, and now it's old. This is progress. To keep with this analogy, in my opinion meat will become the asbestos, the lead paint, or the knob and tube wiring, of food.

If humans don't commit suicide first through war or environmental abuse, I truly believe that future generations will look back on eating meat as a barbaric mistake. They'll tell stories about how we caused epidemics and pandemics, wasted valuable resources and land, polluted air, land, and sea, and abided the suffering of billions of animals, all so we could feed our children dinosaur shaped meat nuggets and buy cheap hamburgers that we were too lazy to even get out of our cars to purchase.

"And then, even as global warming spiraled out of control, they wasted arable land and dwindling water supplies on subsidized corn to feed to the subsidized beef and poultry stock. The ones that didn't get culled or recalled or spoil before even hitting a plate contributed to a dietary culture of heart disease. Also, the animals regularly suffered immensely, which they were aware of but preferred not to consider."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_massacres_in_North_America

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoot_Suit_Riots

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings