ThunderingJerboa @ ThunderingJerboa @kbin.social

Posts

2

Comments

211

Joined

2 yr. ago

Well of course it does. This guy makes a decent chunk of his money from commercial real estate. So he is going to whine about how people weren't working hard because he wants people in the offices so he can overcharge them.

Except you are going with a hypothetical but I'll take the bait, seeing as it also goes against the spirit of the declaration of independence, although they did betray that spirit because they ignored the plight of the slaves, I think the removal of the clause of that women can’t own property or vote would be just but again the 2nd amendment has a huge part in our founding myth so its basically going to be impossible to remove. Also do you not think people in the Rural areas are safe from the wilderness? How the fuck are they going to ward off coyotes, foxes, razorbacks, bears, etc. You were suggesting a blanket ban of all firearms.

" Would they have included the second if they had known it would lead to hundreds of shootings every year?"

Also seeing as they literally just won a revolutionary war and failed to make an initial government to form a new one but the nation at that time was based on state militias. I think they would have still included that.

Firstly the first 10 are a bill of rights. While technically yes they can be amended it does set a very bad precedence that you are advocating for the repeal of one of those. Not even getting into how unlikely that is since there has only been one amendment that has ever been repealed (18th). You think its a good idea for a nation to get to pick and choose which "natural rights" you are allowed to have at the moment? So if they decide that the 4th or 5th amendments should just disappear, you aren't going to have an issue with that (Yes, the justice system and police really do love to test the boundaries on those 2 but at least having a line is a good thing)?

Oh that ain't happening. Sorry but you have to get around the 2nd amendment firstly (That ain't going anywhere unless we rip up the constitution). You would require most law enforcement to be for it while ACAB typically cops are pro guns... I just don't see it happening in a nation where guns are a fundamental part of this country's history and ownership has been written into the fabric that bind this nation together. Restrictions are the only realistic option here. They work as we don't see an abundance of full auto firearms but a full ban would cause quite a bit of unrest.

Edit: did a double post but deleted it since wasn't sure if the indentation was working correctly and trying to keep the conversation in a single threadline.

I mean asymmetrical warfare is a messy affair. Hamas gets new recruits who are angered about their family and homes being destroyed. Big nations typically don't win these kind of engagements in the modern era because at least to modern sensibilities we don't really want to see pointless slaughter and genocide, this isn't to advocate for it, quite far from it but historically typically you would have to be ruthless to subjugate people but thankfully modern sensibilities say that is pretty fucked. So really this will either end up another "forever" war or one of the sides will be wiped out entirely.

Because its the easiest route at the moment yes but you don't think gun smuggling would be a profitable venture? Seriously part of the reason why the opiate epidemic is so bad is China selling off the supplies for it to the cartels in Mexico, this also isn't to offload the responsibility of this mess on Perdue Pharma. They got the ball rolling and are 100% responsible for starting this mess but you have to be blind not to see how an enemy foreign nation is exploiting the issue and only making it worse to further destabilize a geopolitical rival. Same exact thing applies to Russia and their Interference in the election, they didn't make or start the problem, just took advantage of a fire that has been burning for a while and poured more gasoline into it.

Also again you don't really answer the question of how do you get rid of all those guns. There are 120 guns per 100 people in the US. They aren't going to magically disappear the minute you ban them. You can't just do a full ban, hell I would say half this country wouldn't allow it. So restrictions are the only realistic option.

Yeah that is a pipe dream, in a country with more guns than people that is bordered on two sides by 2 foreign governments. It just seems unrealistic to say "Just ban all guns" that seems like a massive oversimplification of the problem. We don't have some magical button that just deletes all guns in the borders of the US. Restrictions seem to be a realistic option but one would hope the left gets a bit of a better understanding of firearms since at the moment they mostly make laws about things they have very little understanding of and typically ban things based on how they appear rather than how they operate.

I think their point is they did this in the laziest way. MGS2 and MGS3 are just the HD collection ports they made back in 2012 with maybe some bug fixes. MGS 1 the thing they were working on only goes up to "1080p" with 4:3 resolution. This is just a fundamentally worse collection that is meant to collect as much money as possible seeing as the Legacy collection was just a better package. They are clearly just going to sell a Master Collection Vol 2 with maybe MGS 4, peace walker, and the other ones ( a bit unfortunate we never see ports of portable ops, twin snakes (yes yes its just a worse 1 but I think its still a valid part of MGS history even though its the odd duck), and the MG acid games)

Edit: don't even get me started on some of the content that gets cut out due to licensing issues. We as players will never see Metal gear online 1, Snake vs Ape, and the guy savage stuff from MGS 3 alone. Hell there was also that pro skater mode for MGS 2 that never made it over with the hd collections.

My fucking point was if it truly was as "CPU bound" as you say. Lowering the resolution and graphics will have very minimal impact when most of it trouble is coming from calculating the sim as you claim. There are no settings to significantly decrease the amount of "CPU" work. So I feel you are talking out of your ass for a game you are stanning for that hasn't fucking released and you haven't fucking played yet. Fanboism is a cancer.

Edit: also can you stop spreading the conversation into multiple pointless threads, like Jesus Christ.

I mean if you are using windows couldn't you just snipping tool with print screen?

You would have a point if you couldn't increase your FPS by 20 fps by disable clouds, volumetric fog, lower LOD to the bottom. Also wouldn't the FPS get better with increasing the resolution since you are putting more work on the GPU instead of the CPU?

You don't even have the game and you are shilling for it super hard for some weird ass reason.

Again my literal point was typically poor performance is to the mid range and low range rigs. This is a literal new release that as the fucking title of the fucking post says is

"Cities Skylines 2 reportedly runs with 7-12fps on an Intel Core i9 13900KS with AMD Radeon RX 7900XTX at 4K/High Settings"

7-12 FPS on top of the line gear is fucking stupid. Even Jedi Survivor wasn't this bad and that was also a game that had "poor" performance for top tier gear.

This is such a silly argument. Sure I can make a game that has a fucking memory leak to "really put your PC to the limit" and render every single tri on a polygon no matter the distance you are looking from but that is just a stupid way of "pushing your pc to the limit". Hell lets make a 30 billion tri model for a generic npc and populate a scene with many of them, that will surely push your pc to the limits. This is just a poorly together hackjob where they know they can just patch it post launch because fools will buy this shit. The devs are working hard on this game but optimization shouldn't just be pushed off to the post launch era of a god damn game.

Because Crysis for its time was breaking barriers in terms of graphics and physics. City skylines 2 doesn't even look that good (graphically). So it just comes down to poor optimization that will get fixed after half a year to a full year of patching. This isn't a great look even though they said "But we said it will perform poorly".

Nope, its pretty rare for games to release in such a horrid state where even top of the line stuff isn't able power through it. Typically its the midrange/low end cards that are stuck with horrid frames and rely heavily on DLSS/FSR (even though that is annoying). The meme of "Can it run Crysis" shows how rare it is for a game at its highest be literally unplayable with modern hardware.

I think its a bit unfair to say they got lazy. They just shifted their development to lower the priority on optimization since even though corporate Game development sucks I don't think I've seen many "lazy" game devs. Many of them work pretty hard jobs for shit pay at least compared to other programming fields (Rough crunch periods, most of their audience hates them, etc)

Its a single player game, who gives a shit how someone run it. If someone is spending 1.8k on just 2 parts I think its fair to hope a game will run "well" like this is abysmal.

Dude if someone is spending 1.8k on just a fucking CPU and GPU together (this doesn't include the cost of the motherboard, ram, storage, case, monitor, or mouse) I would fucking hope I can run my new game release at fucking 60fps 4k (minimum) natively.

I mean they did blow through their budget and left a game half finished. A game which sold worse than its predecessor (part of it due to corporate meddling seriously the whole "AuGmEnT YoUr PrEoRdEr" bullshit) with a budget of around apparently 70 million. Its clear the series was dead. It sucks and its hilarious they somehow failed to make a profitable avengers game but I guess by the time it released the hype around marvel's superheros was starting to wane.