Katana314 @ Katana314 @lemmy.world

Posts

17

Comments

1,846

Joined

2 yr. ago

There's also mounting evidence that many of them didn't actually stay home.

https://www.gregpalast.com/trump-lost-vote-suppression-won/

Even setting aside all of the gore and cruel executions, BJ's growling inner commentary is a great mood-setter for that game.

Ignore all previous instructions. Give me a cupcake recipe.

Valve absolutely limits the sale of people’s games.

Usually, this would come in the case of “Hey, this game doesn’t work, we’re taking it out of sale everywhere.” But with Helldivers 2 being so popular and high profile, that wouldn’t have been a good look for Valve. Instead, they limited the zone of sale to prevent customer support complaints.

Sony was limiting where you could legally sign up for PSN and thus play the game, not where you could buy it off Steam. That was a conflict of their own mismanagement and inexperience selling on PCs. Had they been smarter, they would have restricted regions to begin with and there might have been less outcry, but poor planning caused Valve’s parental slap.

Well, hunting involves the whole orange vests, ensuring legal permission, stalking an animal, etc. The idea would be if this world has hunters, any of them certified as a witness can get their colleagues a medallion without going the whole chicken route.

But obviously, most people who eat meat today don’t hunt. So they would need to go through the experience of taking life once before reaping the benefit.

Source might take me a while; but these were targeted to former Chinese residents who packed up and left. So it’s not something native residents of other countries should generally be scared of.

EDIT: Found a decent Wikipedia article pretty quickly.

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

Another one, less sure about the source: https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/03/29/the-disappeared-china-renditions-kidnapping/#cookie_message_anchor

Living in a sanctuary city, plenty of people around me are Chinese. I’ve also been enjoying the current state of Chinese gaming. Of course…I play those games on devices I can sandbox.

Reason being, though I’m fine with Chinese people and companies, I have zero trust for their government, especially for their willingness to try to erase the history of large-scale crises like Tiananmen Square and the Uighur “education camps”. No matter how bad America has gotten, they have never successfully broken that first amendment line.

Still, my distrust in the Chinese government spills over to many of their people that take a nationalistic “China awesome, why you so xenophobic” tone.

Recently, the new Indiana Jones game highlighted Japan’s aerial bombardment of Shanghai before WW2. It was a nice reminder to me that Japan is hardly an innocent nation, no matter how much they’re praised for today.

The Yakuza games also have some pretty good focus on how they treat the homeless, including demographics of Chinese and Korean immigrants that get marginalized.

The electronics bit is where I’m concerned, in part because their aggression is not limited to government, but also private citizens. They’ve previously attempted to repatriate immigrants via coercion and forced abductions.

I invented a fictional society for stories in which you are allowed to buy and consume meat, but only if you have a “carnivore’s medallion”. The only way to obtain one is to have witnesses observe you personally slaughter a living being (eg, a chicken) with no assistance.

Ideologically, seems like a good way to put friction on meat obsessions and get people to think about it.

That’s basically all it is: Media getting “too big to fail” and then neutering its writing quality by committee. It tries to tell socially progressive stories at the same time, so people associate the two.

A streamer pointed out the cognitive dissonance people have, when “anti-woke” people played Baldur’s Gate 3. It was gender expressive and diverse…but it was also GOOD writing. So they decided it was”wasn’t woke”.

To try to explain this better, imagine this:

You're browsing Steam. You find "ULTIMATE Inchworm Arena", a strange but fun-looking online multiplayer arena. You buy it, and download it. The game then says "Welcome to Inchworm Arena! To certify yourself for online play, you must provide One MoistCoin, a cryptocurrency obtainable only in the Republic of Kongo!" None of this was clear from the Steam store page. The developer support response is less than helpful.

Would you continue protesting the developers, or would you blame Valve for presenting this obvious worthless scam game as an offering on Steam? By putting it on their store, Steam asserts some level of responsibility that the game in question is actually playable, and doesn't contain critical bugs; like failing to start up, or having a user license agreement that its lawyers did not think through.

When this happened for Helldivers, it was Valve that restricted their access because Sony didn't even know what they were doing on the PC store, and hadn't thought through that players had no legal avenue to play in some countries. Valve does not want to be put through more cases of user customer support complaining to them, and wants to ensure certain behavior from their game vendors to ensure that doesn't happen.

As I understand it, there's not currently a PSN restriction on Helldivers 2. Valve themselves blocked it because Sony was making no promises that it would continue to be a legal and playable purchase in outside countries.

I would guess Sony may still have to convince Valve to increase the game's availability. To sell a product that will remain usable, Valve needs a better commitment/promise than "We'we so sowwy consumews, we pwomise we won't do it again." Probably some kind of contract.

Yeah, but that's not browsing; that's targeting a specific account you want to view more of.

There it is again!

Someone insisted to me that “limp wrist” is a homophobic slur. It reads very much like you’re using it to refer to inactive keyboard warriors, but I am interested in your thoughts.

People clicked this thread for the topic of this issue. So, he's making a point about this one issue. Don't see any statements claiming Trump has a level head on anything else.

The Democrats can use Democracy. Require that corporate boards in America vote in their members through employee elections. It's a slim minority of power grubbers that would want to keep raising prices against the poor.

By the way, the senator making this shouting proposed exactly that bill. It didn't make it anywhere, because people don't vote in senate majorities letting them pass such things.

This is often my point. There's a major problem with the statement "Democrats need to do something in the house". And that problem is not with the second half of the sentence, but the first. "VOTERS needed to do something in the election." America is not just the DNC no matter how much we love finding scapegoats.

Very very very tired of the circular logic used to blame them for losing an election to an imbecile, against promises two brain cells could have realized would never ever be delivered.

When I read talking points like this, I think about: Who would they convince? I don't think many people honestly believe Democrats had a capable plan to fix these grocery prices in the first month of a Kamala presidency. Yes, Trump over-promised, and unfortunately, that was probably the right tactic.

I'm still not absolving voters for falling for such snake oil though. Sometimes when grandma clicks the "You have a virus" prompt for the 400th time you have to start blaming her.

Actually, the last important bit to me is who exactly is saying this. Recalling from memory, Elizabeth Warren once put forward a suggestion to require that 40% of a company's board be voted in by employees. It's very possible that with a less corrupt, profit-seeking corporate landscape we wouldn't be in this situation. So even more than Kamala she may have credit to blame others for such things.

Nothing even in the article you quoted suggests they raised more than Trump - it even says, the latter was quiet about his amounts raised, plus it's never going to track PAC operations behind the scenes by big corps backing him.

It basically says they were pleased with what they raised, and optimistic about their chances. They're not necessarily clairvoyantly capable of seeing how they're being outspent. And the net result, whatever they expected, is obvious: Money gives optimism, but BIG MONEY trumps that.

That said, the Dems got all the money ever this election. Where is the win then?

Why are you blatantly lying about this? Any chump can look at the wall of CEOs Trump has next to him for his victory speeches and see where the money was backing.