Syrc @ Syrc @lemmy.world

Posts

10

Comments

720

Joined

2 yr. ago

However Pokemon came out in 96, that’s 28 years. There’s been very little innovation in their games since.

First, not really, there’s been a LOT of innovation in Pokémon, as much as people want to deny it.

And second, 28 years is really not that much. We’re not in the Disney realm of copyright-hogging, I think 50 years is a fair amount of time. The issue is that it’s often way too broad: it should protect only extremely blatant copies (i.e. the guy who literally rereleased Pokémon Yellow as a mobile game), not concepts or general mechanics. Palworld has a completely different gameplay from any Pokémon game so far, and (most of) the creatures are distinct enough. That should suffice to make it rightfully exist (maybe removing the 4/5 Pals that are absolute ripoffs, sure).

It’s the studio Nintendo chose as lead developer for BDSP.

I can’t think of a single first-party Nintendo game that’s released riddled with bugs in recent memory

Literally Pokémon. SwSh, SV and BDSP are all a bug-ridden mess. You will probably find more bugs playing SV for an hour than in all gen 3-6 games together.

Although yeah, it’s a (huge) anomaly and the rest of the first-party games are extremely polished. It just sucks to be a Pokémon fan in the 2020s.

Is this what they call “Crowfunding”?

I mean, I’m not completely against that… but Crowdstrike is an American company. Did you comment on the wrong post?

“Finish the job” to me means giving them much more support than now, and having them annihilate any kind of Palestinian resistance. Basically Israel wins, there is no Palestine anymore, and Islamic people in Gaza get treated like Uyghurs in China.

That would’ve caused the same amount of casualties, if not more, and ensured every surviving Palestinian would be forced to live as a subhuman. And even if I’m wrong, it doesn’t really change much if you draw the line at “aiding a genocide”. A 3-month genocide is still a genocide.

No one is saying Biden isn’t responsible for the genocide. The thing is, issues were already clear during the Trump mandate and he didn’t do anything to stop them either. I’m convinced if this was Trump’s second term, the situation would be much worse (aka, in his words, they would’ve already “finished the job”).

The difference is the Holocaust happened a long time ago, and Trump wasn’t even alive at the time.

The whole Gaza genocide escalated after his four years of presidency which have seen him support Netanyahu (and vice versa).

Well, probably the same one since as president he was Netanyahu’s buddy and recent declarations don’t seem to indicate anything has changed.

Afaik, it’s not really that clear.

I mean, it’s pretty clear Trump was very close with Epstein, and that already paints a very bad picture, but it seems like the whole Jane Doe case never got anywhere, and no one is sure she even exists.

That’s not the point I’m making. I’m saying between inciting an insurrection, spending campaign funds for silencing pornstars, telling people to inject disinfectant in their veins, and sexual assault sentences… I’d say one shady rape allegation that never went anywhere is definitely not the main reason why he shouldn’t be president.

…which confirms that there’s no new info.

Some X users appeared to believe that the document is a recent filing. The post was shared after about 150 pages of transcripts related to a 2006 grand jury investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's rape and sex trafficking of teenagers was released to the public on Monday.

However, the document included in the X post isn't connected to those papers, but actually comes from a lawsuit filed in the months leading up to the 2016 election by an anonymous plaintiff using the name "Katie Johnson."

Now, I wouldn’t be surprised if he actually did it, wouldn’t even be the worst thing he did. But that is indeed the general consensus, afaik.

EDIT: the article posted by Flying Squid would be more relevant to current events.

…does it? I tried googling a bit but couldn’t find anything recent.

EDIT: okay, there’s articles talking about the Epstein documents, but they don’t seem to be explicitly connected to this specific case. Would’ve been better to post that article instead of a 8-year old one.

Well, as others said, it’s probably because it’s a 2016 article about a story that never got anywhere.

Maybe it was true, maybe it wasn’t, who knows. But it’s definitely not the best thing to give press announcements about, especially considering all the horrible stuff Trump has verifiably done.

Ehh… that depends too. Here in Italy there’s plenty of people that wouldn’t bat an eye at their 10-year old playing CoD and shooting people in the most graphic ways possible, as long as there’s no female nipples in sight.

And splitting the votes of the sane Americans among multiple parties, allowing Trump to get a second term and enact Project 2025 is a productive and thought-out strategy?

You answered yourself, it’s because Republicans need to lose consistently, and it’s been over 70 years since the last time they even lost three consecutive terms.

Meanwhile, did you see what happened after three consecutive Republican terms? Clinton. Reagan + H. W. in a row definitely shifted the overton window to the right, and forced Dems to react accordingly. That’s what needs to happen, in reverse. Allowing Trump in office again would send the message that racism is the winning strategy, and Dems might get even worse.

Waiting for the window to shift might look like a pie in the sky to you (and you’re not even that wrong, considering how the DNC keeps pushing their worst), but a third party winning is a pie in straight outer space.

Thanks for the sources, I was genuinely not aware of how many people supported Perot.

third party votes can’t force the biden regime and the democrats to abandon those positions, but they can show the democrats how much support they could pick up by taking them on.

But even then, it’s usually not enough support for it to actually change the outcome. In the case of Perot it was, apparently, but even then it still didn’t push either of the candidates to change their views on nafta. If support that big is still not enough for them to worry, it’s hard to believe it can ever make a difference.

you said every major candidate runs on platforms that the majority of americans don’t support. you’re right. why can they get away with that? is it possibly because people have accepted the “throw your vote away” logic?

No, it’s because the US got so divided on stuff that’s supposed to be a given, that contributing to an ongoing genocide isn’t the most important thing for voters right now. When the main candidates are polar opposites on key issues in people’s lives like Abortion or LGBT rights, anything happening outside of the country becomes an afterthought.

I don’t know the answer to that, but i do know that actually expressing what we want with the only voice we are given that politicians can’t deny is a phenomenal way to change it!

It is, but not by voting third party. I can understand it if the candidate is actually leading in polls like Perot was, but right now hoping for a third party (or worse, Kennedy is apparently the most supported after the main two so FOURTH party) exploit is way too unrealistic to take the risk.

As I’ve said in another post, to me the only feasible way to get stuff to actually change is to keep voting for the “least bad” of the main candidates. If Republicans keep losing every election, eventually they’ll resign to the fact that they can’t keep running on christofascism and give their platform to a candidate that at least has the same opinion as the Dem one about basic human rights. And only at that point, when Dems won’t be able to run on “my opponent is literally Satan”, they’ll have to shift to more progressive positions to keep getting elected. If at that point they still don’t, you can safely vote for third parties because “wasting your vote” isn’t that much of a risk.

You said “if anecdote isn’t enough, they’re both well-studied”, so I thought some research actually existed about it.

I’m not saying third party campaigns are useless or always spoilers, I just don’t think they can actually force a change since it seems they can successfully be ignored with no repercussions. Sure, major parties can pick up bits from their programs if they want to, but they’re definitely not in a situation where they have to or else they’ll risk the election.

Even now for example, I think every non-major candidate except Kennedy is against funding Israel. But despite that, and despite (I think?) the majority of Americans being against it as well, both Biden and Trump are running with it. Because they know it’s not an issue that actually “matters” to the campaign, since there’s no viable alternative that doesn’t support it.

What I’m saying is, how did those studies reach the conclusion that said third parties were actually a factor in those changes, and didn’t just happen at the same time?

Because again, considering the statistics for recent years’ elections, third parties haven’t been a threat to the major two for over 50 years. I’m interested in why would they care about the relatively small voter base of those parties when they wouldn’t have changed any recent American election.