Sciaphobia @ Sciaphobia @lemm.ee

Posts

1

Comments

120

Joined

2 yr. ago

It's like you're not even trying.

Nah, it wasn't very clear in retrospect. That kind of snide comment doesn't really translate to text very well. My bad!

Well, gaslighting would be trying to get you to question reality in some way. I don't think that fits here. I was more implying he was being a dickhead. Because he was.

What's outrageous about what I said that I read in an article?

Fairly confident he's calling you a liar and suggesting the things you claim to have seen in an article you never really saw, and are instead offering a claim of your own under the guise of it having been in an article.

Pretty cool way to interact with another human being, if you think about it.

I have the guy he had responded to tagged as the guy with the piss voice. Good times.

Better be careful. He sounds like he means business. You don't wanna be on the receiving end of the piss voice.

Last I read about this was years and years ago, and the claim at the time from the source I learned about it from was that the cause of this behavior is unknown. Is it known now?

What's that from? The Simpsons?

It's alright solo, but it really shines with coop, and the community is mostly very friendly and welcoming. Occasionally you might get called an elf in a fit of pique, but I've personally encountered very few toxic DRG players.

I actually bought a stamp that prints that specifically to return Spectrum's trash.

Same same. Some copium being smoked.

Not really my favorite, but I never see these games listed in places like this, so I'm going to be the change I want to see in the thread.

Check out Lufia and Lufia II for the Super Nintendo. It's crazy how underrated these ended up being, and how good they were. I've played them semi recently, as SNES games go, and the second one still holds up well. The first is good, but feels a little more dated.

Sure, but that's not the end stage of the thought experiment. It's not really even the start. How exactly is this larger group of people supposed to enact any viable change? I think we could agree that seems unlikely to be possible in an unorganized/uncoordinated manner. The solution to that is to get organized and coordinate, right?

Well what does that look like? That could take nearly as many forms as people you ask to agree - so you'd need an idea that enough people would fall behind to still out number. Once that is achieved... What? If the goal of the burgeoning group is violent revolution, they won't get very far into the planning phase before being scooped up by security forces in some form or another. If the goal is nonviolent revolution, such as refusal to work, the system is constructed in such a way that those you would need to participate have a lot to lose, and little ability to withstand a protected protest/encounter/whatever, vs, presumably, a group that could easily outlast all of those things, as well as their children, and their children's children.

That's not to say nothing can work, but I think it might be just a bit reductive to suggest that things are as simple as suggesting it is total apathy in those who would need to unite to accomplish these goals that explains why the goals aren't striven towards.

Could be worse. Could have been raisins.

what choice do you have if all services are doing it?

Kinda wild, because at first he seemed reasonable and offered decent, if somewhat generic, advice. Then I looked into some of the stuff he was claiming, and.... woof.

I think back then he was going to create an alternative to Patreon.

I was told it is also less likely to succeed the longer you've had it. Relying on reversals is a less than ideal plan.

What could possibly go wrong with that. I heard the Russians have been very trustworthy in the recent past.

Oh yes it's all clear to me now.

The p value is effectively the % chance something happened by coincidence, and not because of a real effect. Like flipping a coin and getting the same side several times in a row. P value is an assessment of that likelihood. Less than .05 means a less than 5% chance of that. I don't know what the other bit is, except it was likely a method of statistical analysis.

It's a way of saying that the results they found were very unlikely to be due to chance.