LetMeEatCake @ LetMeEatCake @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

106

Joined

2 yr. ago

"Used to be" being the operative term. The GOP you speak of is dead, has been dead for many many many years, was dying for many years before it died, and will remain dead until the current party coalitions break down and we see a new alignment of the electorate.

I want something more complex than a basic whitelist and blacklist. I already use that in Firefox and it helps somewhat but not wholly. I want to manage specifically when it happens and in accordance to said lists. I haven't found anything that handles that in the settings.

There was one extension I used in Chrome that I haven't found a Firefox replacement for, but I stopped trying to look a while ago and just live without it.

Was a specific kind of cookie manager: you could whitelist a set of websites to keep their cookies. Everything else would be deleted when you told the extension to do so.

Too many websites need cookies that stick around indefinitely. But I also don't want to delete everything everytime I close Firefox, because I may want to keep a website around for a few days without wanting to bother adding it to a whitelist.

I cannot be 100% certain but I'm confident I was using it not long after the 1.0 release. That'd put me at 2004. 19 years!

Although I did briefly switch over to Chrome when it was new and fast. Then switched back when Firefox had a major optimization pass.

The modern republican electoral ecosystem is sustained through rage and hatred. Their entire campaign strategy is built around the assumption of having a target of some form. Republican voters are simply not able to be activated to go vote (and to stay voting republican) in sufficient quantities without a rage-hate target.

Republicans fundamentally need something to target and hate and be rage filled about. Whether it's gay marriage, Obamacare, abortion, ebola (remember that in 2014? forgotten the day after the election), immigrants, mask mandates, critical race theory... They need something, anything, no matter how illogical, unethical, or completely incoherent it might be. They do not care about any of those negative details.

Trans people became the conservative rage-hate target of the moment. They throw everything at the wall and this was the target that stuck for the present day.

Republicans are fueled by hate. Issues do not matter to them. Hate and anger matter to them.

Only thing I'd dispute here is the "after that" part — republicans and conservatives in general are already coming for LGB, women, and minorities. Transphobia is their smokescreen / highest priority, rather than a first step. If they succeed (I hope not!) that will result in more of their energy going into attacking the other marginalized groups, rather than starting to attack those groups.

I feel the core genre identity of RPG is a known thing and not as uncertain as you paint it. There's the iron-clad center-point with CRPGs and JRPGs. Then games that venture off from those identities into more action-y RPGs (a la The Witcher or Mass Effect). Or games that go more action-y but in a different way (Diablo-clones). There's games expanding out from the JRPG core like tactical RPGs (though there's an intersection with CRPGs somewhere there e.g. X-Com). And so on.

Sure, there will be games out there where people will ask "is this truly an RPG?" but that doesn't mean the genre itself is fuzzy and poorly grasped, even if it will be difficult to come across a satisfying definition.

The name itself is vague and a poor guide... but that's true across most gaming genres. People use "strategy" in shooters or RPGs or puzzle games, but we all know what a Real Time Strategy game is. Almost every game has "action" and a smaller but still nearly-every game has "adventure" to it, but action-adventure is another known quantity. I'm not sure there's any genre that is perfectly encapsulated within the name given to it, or one where there are not people questioning games at the fringes of that genre.

I'm in New England, so similar levels of cold winters as MN and most of Canada by population. Really it's something you adapt to and it becomes your normal.

Sometimes you cannot go out, even for work, because of a giant snow storm. Sometimes you need to wear a heavy duty coat to go to work or go grocery shopping. That's about it. When you're inside and it's cold you have the heat on and wear nice socks/slippers.

The nice thing about the cold is you can always put more clothes on, add more heat. There only so many layers of clothes you can remove to deal with hot weather...

Other than the nightly shows, you won't be seeing the impacts of these strikes for months. Films and shows take a lot of time to go from inception to finished product. For movies I wouldn't be surprised if the impact doesn't happen until next year.

Yes. It's not the most graphically demanding game so hardware wise it isn't much of a test of a new PC. It is, however, rather aesthetically beautiful and worth going for in the context of what you're going for, IMO.

The sole DLC/expansion for CP2077 is coming out this fall. If you've waited this long you might as well wait for it to be complete before you revisit it.

I've been waiting for the DLC before doing a first foray, personally.

The DGA ratified an agreement last month. If they hadn't, we would have three major video unions on strike instead of two.

My recollection is that the shift started pre-covid. Anti-vaxxers were originally predominantly left leaning but I think it hit the 50/50 range somewhere around 2012-2014. At least in the US. Trump shifted it even more, then covid+Trump just completely inverted where it had been a generation prior.

Apple is the only customer after TSMC's N3B node. Everyone else wants N3E, which will not be available until next year. N3E has better yields but worse performance, while being easier/cheaper to manufacture. The increase in yields is greater than the loss in performance.

If TSMC didn't offer terms to make up for the faults of N3B, there's a very real chance that Apple would have balked and stuck with N4 again. In this case, Apple had a strong hand: without Apple, the entire N3B line would be idle and the capital expenditure to set them up would be wasted. If yields improve enough Apple might stick with N3B in the future, which would save TSMC even more money and allow them to shift back over to a better (for them) pricing model.

Apple had a comparatively strong hand for these negotiations.

Apple has been pricing on what the market will bear for a long time, maybe the entirety of the iphone's existence. Prices may go up; they may not.
Apple will not be financially obligated to increase prices as a result of cost changes: an iphone costs something in the $300-500 range to manufacture, and Apple charges $800+ — even a doubling of the cost of the SoC will not fundamentally alter Apple's pricing calculations.

Price increases for the 15 will be determined entirely by if Apple thinks the market will bear that price increase such that doing so would result in more profit for them.

It's been that way since ~90nm nodes. First large scale 90nm production was for a revised PS2 chip in 2003. Intel's launched in 2004.

Node names haven't lined up with node sizes for nearly 20 years now. Not a recent development.

Microsoft got Zenimax and was then rather excessive in how they handled it, and that is a large part of what prompted this degree of pushback by regulatory bodies.

If Xbox wants to leave the door open for future acquisitions they are very much aware they need to tread carefully moving forward.

This reads like a rather optimistic take to me.

What Microsoft learned here is that they can buy a publisher (Bethesda), make that publisher's games exclusive, and still get the biggest gaming acquisition in history approved by regulators.

Microsoft will likely pause acquisitions for a bit, but everyone else that wants to get into/stay in gaming is going to look into them even more than before. I'd be surprised if Sony doesn't end up buying someone decently large (but not as large as Activision: Sony cannot afford anything like that). Everyone seems to think Sony would go for Square Enix but I think they would make a different choice.

They have been picking their battles.

Breaking an existing company up into multiple smaller companies is an order of magnitude more difficult for a US regulator than stopping a company from buying another one. The FTC is running face first into a legal system that has methodically chipped away at anti trust law for generations. That's the obstacle here, not picking the wrong battles.

Diablo is very different from Starcraft.

I think if people are just after a multiplayer-focused RTS that Blizzard is still capable of delivering a top quality experience.
Where I am skeptical is their ability to deliver a top quality single player campaign. SC2's campaign had some of the worst gaming writing I have ever seen — and I've seen a lot of bad writing in games. The missions themselves felt over-designed / QA'd to the point of just being tutorials for individual units.

They can do the multiplayer, I'm confident they could pull that off. I also don't have any interest in that. Can they make the single player experience fun? I'm skeptical, but would like to be proven wrong.

I had a Galaxy S5 which I think was IP67 (someone fact check me on that)

According to wiki, you remembered right!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Galaxy_S5