PlzGivHugs @ PlzGivHugs @sh.itjust.works

Posts

38

Comments

506

Joined

2 yr. ago

The problem isn't the length, its the fact that stories are warped or straight-up built around every single (often not even) loose thread from the original trilogy and to a lesser extent, the prequels. For example, the Madalorian was great for the first season, where yes, it was episodic, but it did still have an overarching plot that built up to a climatic final battle. Where it started to run into problems was when it had to tie back into the original plot. Mandalorians lost all mystique, pacing was hampered by exposition, and the focus was draw away from the main characters and the plot in service of tie-ins to Ashoka and the main franchises.

Ultimately, it should be about telling the best stories. Sometimes, that might be episodic as worked well for Mandalorian, sometimes a continuous plot like Andor, and sometimes it is a full movie that does fit alongside the original cannon like Rogue One.

The fact that I can't tell if this is parody or not is sad.

I'm not sure how recoverable it is at this point, but if you want Star Wars to act as a forever-story, don't treat it as one single story. Its okay if plot doesn't directly build with each release. Its okay if it doesn't connect to other parts of the cannon. Its okay if you have no shared characters. Hell, its even okay (if not ideal) if some media contradicts each other. The important part is making good stories, and if a new peice of media wouldn't work when attached to a larger plot, don't attach it to the larger plot. Simple as that.

Look at something like 40K, for example. While yes, there is a "main" plot, its only a small part. Honestly, fans often outright ignore the "main plot" Horus Hersey books, in favour of the more fun and compartmentalized books like the Eisenhorn Trilogy or the ork books because those are the books that most revel in the setting and themes of 40K and aren't burdened by dozens of other books that they have to tie in to.

From what I've heard (although I have no real sources) a lot of the rich Africans are similarly wealthy to many of the rich Americans. Its mostly owners of resource extraction sites and refineries, similar to oil barons and mining companies in American history, but with even less regulations. That said, you don't really hear about them as much because the local governments aren't strong enough to challenge them (or even collect accurate information on them) and they're less interested in flaunting their wealth to the poor.

He addresses this some. 120v is still a lot faster than boiling water on the stove. Coffee makers are significant, but boiling water in a microwave is generally a bad idea, given the risk of superheating (not that people don't do it.)

To try and answer what you're asking genuinely, since I don't see indication that this is bad-faith:

The reason African-Americans and some black people get a "pass" to use it isn't because it isn't offensive. Its because they're expected to have a better understanding of their own oppression than someone who hasn't lived with it, and because it can generally be assumed to not have racist connotations. The word has such heavy history that if someone who isn't black uses it, it is usually (and reasonably) assumed to be racism. Even among those who are black, theres a lot of nuance, with many feeling uncomfortable with saying it, either because the word is so loaded that it can be offensive reguardless, or because they don't feel like they're connected enough to the history to have the "right" to say it (I.E. someone who grew up in a black-majority country might feel this way.)

Making immigration more difficult already benefits the wealthy. Not having birthright citizenship won't change that.

I think you're misinterpreting my intentions. I believe that making immigration and citizenship easier is best. I just also believe that Jus Soli is an ineffective band-aid solution, that doesn little to help the common man.

I'm not informed enough to be very specific in execution, but in my mind, immigration should be extremely generous. Ideally, I'd say it should be effectively unlimited, but I know there are economic considerations that need to be taken into account, such as the rate of housing construction. That said, I don't feel confident enough to outline specifics beyond that. I have nothing against immigrants or immigration.

Its purely citizenship, and the political power it involves specifically that I believe shouldn't be given out based on geographic location at one instant alone. Given that its effectively giving you power to change how the country is run, it should be given to those who are directly affected by how the country is run. Ideally, I'd almost want a system where someone can't be more invested in a different country, although again, I'm not sure about specifics. Prehaps something along the lines of a limit of how much property can be owned outside the country relative to within the country, so regular people qualify easily, but someone can't get citizenship while they own a dozen houses elsewhere. Again, I'm not an expert, and not trying to advocate for a specific solution, just that immigration be made easier and citizenship shouldn't be something you can buy.

Edit: fixed a couple typos.

We don't know for every one for certain, but we have plausable explanations or backgrounds for nearly every cryptid and mythological creature. Usually, the explanation is either a diseased animal, misidentified bones, or someone looking to make money.

So we give up with a half-measure, that helps the rich moreso than the poor without addressing the underlying issue?

This isn't a helpful or sustainable approach. Should we give up on climate change because reducing carbon output is hard, or say, "Well, as long as you don't use coal, its good enough." Of course not. Not to mention that making immigration and/or citizenship more accessible isn't an impossible task at all, esspecially relative to climate change or weath inequality.

In those few, extremely rare cases are enough to fuck up a nation's politics, immigration isn't the problem.

They're rare, but not impossible, esspecially when it comes to the involvement of powerful/rich governments, corporations or individuals. We already have enough of that, no reason to make it easier for effectively no gain.

Edit: esspecially considering that ability to chose the location your child is born in is based primarily off wealth rather than moral character or anything else positive.

Its technically doable, but it wouldn't be easy. The problem isn't in making federated user authentication or servers, its just making a game that is flexable enough with powerful enough modding tools to be worth using compared to just making a game from scratch. Thats why, if you think about all the games in the genre, they all have significant limitations to what can be made in them (at least with any amount of polish).

As a simplified example, lets say you want the default mechanics set of your game to be a first person shooter. This means you use 3D graphics, optimized for higher-detail enviroments and include features that would be most useful for that, such as a simple optimized 3D physics system, and tools for making detailed 3D levels.

In this new game, someone wants to make a 2D platformer. What additional tools will they need? A way to lock physics to two dimensions, or possibly even a new physics system entirely, A way to manipulate the camera separate from what the game started with, an orthographic camera, possibly a new lighting system, possibly different optimization techniques, the ability for the modder to replace the player controller and change it's mechanics entirely, and the tools to use all these to make new levels.

By that point, you're half way to making a new game engine, and the modder is 90% of the way to just making a standalone game.

I don't see why voting or having political influence in a country you have no commitment to is a good thing. It seems to me that it just makes it easier to abuse the systems in place without having to live with the consequences.

The question wasn't about expecting people to be born in the country they wish to live, it was about whether citizenship by jus soli should be an option without conditions.

But why should it be an option if you don't and/or don't intend to live there?

Wouldn't the correct answer in that case just be to make it easier to immigrate and gain citizenship, rather than expecting you to be born there?

I theoretically, I would say I'm generally against it, with the understanding the citizenship is not the same as permission to live/work in the country nor the same as permission to access services.

Citizenship should generally mean that the country is your "home country" rather than place of origin. In that case, citizenship should be given to those who want to commit to participating in and improving the government and culture of the country (if only because thats where they spend most time). Where you were born doesn't relate to this strongly. What matters is how much time you'll spend here in the future, such as if your parents are citizens or permanent residents (meaning you'll likely grow up here) or if you want to move to the country permanently.

Basically, where you're born shouldn't matter. What should is your intent on living in the society you've gained influence in.

Thats assuming you already regularly install Windows, which most don't. It should be the median install, by a normal user. In the same way, I wouldn't count the experience of a veteran distro-hopper as the standard for setup time on Linux.

To find and quickly vet a cleanup script on Windows, I'd say half an hour to an hour is a fair estimate, esspecially given that there are a lot of fake or outdated ones out there. On top of that, there a bunch of other settings these scripts often ignore, like web search in start, so I'd say up to another half hour for that is reasonable, esspecially if you weren't thorough when searching for your initial script.

I wouldn't say the problem is with their length or simplicity. I'm sure I could enjoy a short anthology in one of these universes. The bigger problem is the fact that its embedded into a game, effectively breaking the pacing and flow of both the written text and the game. Ideally, this would at least allow you to use environmental and visual storytelling alongside the text, but this is rarely done well enough to justify all the downsides, so you end up with the worst of both worlds.

The Bethesda (and related) RPGs. The core gameplay loop just feels so shallow in both, meaning most of your time is spent wandering with nothing meaningful to do, or in spammy, often janky combat. The parts that are interesting, the character builds and the lore, aren't super involved in most of the game. You spend so little time building characters, and most of the lore is in written logs and books.

I mean, 10 minutes is pretty optimistic even for a relatively savy user. It took me somewhere around an hour to find and fix everything. On the other hand, it took me and a bunch of people on the Linux support subreddit around 20 hours of troubleshooting to get Linux into a mostly functional state on my PC, at which point I and everyone else had given up, so...

Its been nearly two years since then though, and given what a nightmare Windows 11 is, I guess I'll have to give it another shot.

Try using the title:() operator. For example, title:(warrior OR knight). It can also be combined with others, like title:(sale) OR flair:(offering). I'm sure theres also options for content and metadata, but I don't know them off the top of my head.