abraxas @ abraxas @sh.itjust.works

Posts

0

Comments

780

Joined

2 yr. ago

That's fair. I don't have numbers to back this, but I do know a little about psychology related to sunken cost. We're drawn to embrace and support what we've invested in. Actually I've got some numbers that "sorta" back it depending on how you look at them.

CK2 sold 2M copies in about 2.5 years. CK3 sold the same number of copies in 1.5 years. Why is that an argument that CK2's DLC is hurting CK3 sales? Two reasons. First, because Paradox is a MUCH bigger company now than it was in 2014 (thanks in part to Cities Skylines, topically speaking), and CK3 would/should be riding on the coattails of CK2 and isn't. Second, because those 2M sales for CK2 includes an added 7M DLC sales, and DLCs arguably reduce sales a bit simply by existing (I know I was in the boat of "holding off a while" because of the DLC).

I’d much rather pay one time purchases than a subscription, because then it feels like I’m just renting instead of buying.

I agree completely in most cases. It's these mega-DLC games that flip the script. I can only use personal experience as precedent, but for me I just can't bring myself to play a game I haven't invested a lot of money in over a very similar game I have.

And an “EOL” game isn’t necessarily bad because now modders can mod the game without worrying about updates breaking things

Yeah, but this sorta reiterates my point. Modders embracing the older game makes it hard to sell a newer game. I mean, I have a feeling Minecraft2 would not be nearly as easy a sell as Minecraft is.

Sorry, where did I say any of that?

After you acknowledged that big farms are in the process of regulatory capture in a way that's causing phenomenal harm, you admitted that you don't care about people maliciously grouping them with smalltime meat and dairy farmers because "Nah I’d rather fight to end animal exploitation than help smaller exploiters ". Your fucking words. You just called a lot of my best friends "exploiter" because you don't like that they farms chickens to pay their bills. If you give a fuck about animals, stop spitting in people's faces. It might surprise you, but we're animals, too.

It doesn't matter to you if small farmers are pro-environment or not. It works for you to put them in the same bucket as a completely unrelated class because you get to try to flush them all down at once for your own personal ethical reasons. And the ethics of everyone else? Well we are subhuman to you.

But hey, I know that for people like you, you just need reasons to hate vegans

Honestly, the only exploiters I know are big ag, and militant vegans. So yes, for "people like me" (as you've now categorized me with big evil businesses to), I do hate a certain category. But I don't "hate vegans". I won't make the bad-faith move you just did. I don't hate vegans. I hate when people try to hurt other people, lie and cheat, because they place non-vegans below the animals they fight to protect.

That's all I was looking for. An admission that this isn't about the environment or about truth, and that you are 100% onboard with lying to get what you want.

You're far more honest than most militant vegans I meet.

...and that the rest of the article has virtually nothing to do with the environment or lobbying.

For more context for you and @trash80@lemmy.dbzer0.com, this is fairly emergent.

The dairy industry has been a loss-industry for a few decades thanks to pro-big-ag government intervention. Very few farms are able to keep from consolidating because of that.

It's a mass-scale hostile takeover, and THAT is a much more meaningful headline than us forgetting about the smaller farms that fight to prevent this whole thing from becoming a panopoly

So fight to fix that instead of helping Tyson throw small family farms into the meat grinder.

I agree, which is why we should have a problem with articles that pretend the rest of farmers are the same as them. It just helps them because nobody is left to side with small farms.

I mean, how about this. Did you know that many of the meat and dairy subsidies that people get up-in-arms about are paid as meat- or dairy-specific taxes by farmers, and only the bigger farms reap the benefit?

Those big farms profit from the fact that they and vegans have a common enemy... small meat/dairy farms.

Not only is the headline dishonest, but the article tries to maintain the dishonest attitude of the headline. And then, the article doesn't really talk about environment lobbying at all, it talks about why the author thinks people should be vegans.

The article tries to make it sound like all meat and dairy companies are guilty, and then goes on to make claims about health risks of eating meat and claims about animal rights.

It's not a meaningful argument about the environment, it's propaganda.

So if experts in the field conceded that there is an unbreakable ceiling for lab-grown meat that it will never be as sustainable as organic meat, would that change your view?

Because the most efficient lab grown meat requires incubator technology that scales negatives; that is, you lose efficiency as you scale up, so you would need lots of small, prohibitively expensive, in a massive perfectly contaminant-free clean-room. Short of starting from scratch and discovering a completely new technique that has never been envisioned, lab-grown meat will always be worse for the environment and for sustainability than organic meat.

Some people don't like this guy, but this is a fairly honest video on the problems with lab-grown meat.

Again, atheists tend to argue the LPOE terribly.

The Argument From Evil, properly stated, concludes that no god exists because it defines God as a necessarily omnipotent/omni-benevolent being. I think it's weak because it leans on a version of God that most religious people don't REALLY believe. It then leans on the fact that lines like "God is not good" or "God is not omnipotent" gets religious folks' back up.

If the only way an atheist argument wins is because the valid logic objections to it are frustrating to Christians, it's not a great argument.

But stated right, it IS still an argument for the nonexistence of God, not an argument that "God exists but is immoral".

I'll be the first to say the new trend of atheists horribly mangle the Problem of Evil, and while they rebut responses like yours, they tend to do so horribly and emotionally. But properly stated, Divine Command theory really doesn't work.

The LPOE is challenging one of two traits for God: omnipotence or omni-benevolence. And those two concepts are defined in reasonable, quantitative ways. The God in the your example is a direct acceptance of the LPOE by the admission that god isn't "benevolent" at all by that definition. Which is perfectly fine, but it does create a lot of very valid moral or ethical problems, along the line of Hedonistic salvation.

The rest of my reply doesn't belong with LPOE, but this is focusing on the rules side instead of the suffering side.

You see it as a parent setting rules for a child, but it can also accurately be seen as (sorry, both of these come from the show Suits, and apparently the showrunners have a problem with moms) "mommy tells the child he'll get a Playstation if he lies to the judge about daddy hitting her". OR, "mommy will punish you if you tell daddy what she did with the mailman last night". Rules are not inherently Good by most standards.

And that's before you add the uncertainty. We're 100% definitely not "following rules that our parents gave us". We're following rules we found typed up on a piece of paper that some people **insist ** came from our parents, and maybe they did. And some of them seem really weird or even harmful, and seem to contradict what we think mom and dad want for us. And we have to decide whether or not we're going to follow them before our parents come home. Because daddy will murder us if we're wrong. And I don't mean a beating, I mean with his God-glock.

What many atheists do not understand is that human logic does not apply to God(s), just like the feelings of my dog wanting a slice of pizza do not apply to me

This is true, but you can still pass some judgement on a dog who acts out of possessive-aggression. But of course, we are more responsible for our actions than dogs, aren't we? Why? Because we have more agency than dogs. Guess who has the most agency, assuming there's a God? That would make him the most accountable. When he does something prima facie evil and the more you analyze his actions the weaker the objections get, then "Good is just what God wants and evil is just what he doesn't want" simply doesn't cut it.

Is God evil, probably, what is evil? What is good? Is God just? In application to others if you’re following Christian ideology he theoretically is in the long term, but in application to their self definitely not.

I think there are Christian ideologies that can make sense of it all, but contingent salvation is as filmsy to philosophical attack as wet cardboard. I would encourage you to listen/read Dr. Josh Rasmussen for his in-depth research into the Problem of Evil and Salvation from an open-minded Christian perspective. He, too, concludes that God cannot pass the Problem of Evil if there is contingent salvation. But he stands by the Ontological Argument, so conceding "God isn't all-good" is not on the table for his POV.

The biggest problem I have with Atheist logic is that if there is a god that it should follow human logic and because there is suffering and issues in the world there must be no god or that God isn’t worth following. If after life beliefs are correct do you think it matters if you took a moral high ground against an unfair god?

Ironically, I would hope a Christian would be the first person to say YES IT MATTERS because they stand behind martyrdom as a legitimate virtue. Let me put it this way. If Christianity were true with one exception, that the Devil ultimately wins instead of God, would you kneel to him because your eternity is more important than actually being a good person? Would you be able to respect a person who does unspeakable evils, knowing they are unspeakable evils, because they get to selfishly be immortal?

If so, I think you've just given atheists the win. If not, then at least you can understand (if not agree) rejecting a God you think is evil.

The same goes for religious people, you have to accept that God let’s bad things happen to you.

Yeah, I'm fine with that. I think the true god is neither omnipotent nor omni-benevolent. God can be a jerk sometimes, but so can I, and I don't have to debase myself or put him far above me, so I can forgive god. If that gets me a good afterlife, I got there in a way I'll never regret. If that gets me eternal damnation, at least I know I didn't selfishly throw away my morals for personal gain.

As one of my favorite baduk streamers puts it, "the mistake was earlier".

Using dozens of DLCs to get B2B-grade revenue out of a game sounds like a great business strategy, but as Paradox is EOLing all those games that people have spent hundreds on, I think there is this reaction of "why should I prepare to spend hundreds again?"

I genuinely believe this is a "short term revenue" thing, and will ultimately cost them against a subscription-from-day-1 model. I mean, I doubt I'm the only person who can't bring themselves to even LOOK at Crusader Kings 3. I never touched Sims 4 until it was free. And if EU5 comes out? I'll act the same. Paradox already has more of my money than Blizzard, so more power to them, but how many people like me aren't going to consider buying sequels? It's not about the money, it's about the investment of money. If I were in $500 from subscription fees, I'd feel less harmed than $300 in DLCs for a now-out-of-print game. We humans are a complicated psychology

For me, I'll try em when they're free or when they go full patient-gamer. Which is a shame because Paradox makes excellent games. They just keep making people like me want to wait to pull the trigger.

EDIT: Softened my statements because I didn't like them on reread.

This COULD become the Sims equation problem all over again. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt until I've tried it.

The Sims 3 with all expansions is simply a much better game overall than Sims 4 base game. And since there's no "sequel story", you basically just have a "lower quality rerelease"

I can't find accurate purchase/play figures, but Sims 4 pivoting to F2P last year supports my thoughts on that. In terms of quality, a HD graphics DLC would have been a better value and made them more money.

Except not, because having fewer players give them more money seems to be the new model. More power to em. I really wish "Life By You" wasn't the only Sims alternative coming out. Paradox is definitely much better than EA, but they're not perfect either.

As I replied elsewhere, I'd rather use the word "propaganda". The article isn't about the environment at all. It's about throwing a bunch of reasons at the reader to become vegan. And clickbait headlines always put the full story in the body, but it continues to leave out the fact that 90% of the meat and dairy industry (the non-big-ag) isn't represented in their 100% figure.

As bad as health insurance being tied to my job, it's not the same as knowing somebody could physically assault me at any time in front of the authorities and be told they just earned themself a week's vacation and nothing else.

Yeah, that was disgusting. Even when they tried, school had a way of taking away dignity that is downright illegal in the adult world.

Yeah, no shit. If my coworker tries to bully me, I have him fired. If he tries to fight me, I have him arrested. If my boss (I have one, instead of 7) is an asshole to me, I put out my resume.

There's a lot of advantages to school if you're a lazy bastard who just wants life to hand you things on a silver platter and are willing to pay the price of freedom, but there's also a lot of negatives.

And, as you note, there can be confusion over what level of certainty a jury needs to reach. Beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond any doubt

Here's the Ninth Circuit opinion on reasonable doubt: "A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common sense and is not based purely on speculation". A single "I don't know", a single seemingly-minor inconsistency, a singular whiff of incompetence by the defense council. More complicatedly, a single defense line of questioning that gets suppressed (which, maybe a juror is supposed to disregard, but being told to disregard something favorable to the defense at all is something that gets my "common sense" aware)

There's a gap between reasonable doubt and doubt, but it's a lot narrower than the gap between reasonable doubt and preponderance of evidence. If the phrase "probably did it" shows up in deliberation, that should be the moment everyone stops and agrees to a "not guilty" verdict because of the "probably".

All this being said, it bothers me to some degree that people will go to great lengths to fight for Avery’s innocence

He's an Innocence Project exoneree who, as you just agreed, was railroaded again. I'd like to point out that Netflix didn't lead the publicity about him, they just profited from it. And the truth is, there's enough inconsistency with the prosecution's case that "probably did it" is honestly a bit strong and I vacillate between thinking he did it and that he's innocent because as bad as it looked for him, there were a couple stronger suspects that didn't have alibis. The only reason I'm not "team innocence" is the physical evidence, but even I have to admit it's evidence that prosecution couldn't form a cohesive narrative for but defense could.

Coincidentally, I watched a "Police Accountability" video just yesterday that matches the Defense story of this trial almost perfectly. Small car (let's say house), they keep searching for something and fail to find it... Then you hear them panicking that this is going to blow back if they don't find something. And then the cop plants a little marijuana thinking the angle on his body-cam won't catch it, and it only barely does. There are inconsistencies with how they discovered the only physical evidence that directly ties Steven Avery to the homicide (the bones weren't a smoking gun), evidence that is so weird it doesn't create a sensible story.

Both Lenk and Colborn are described like they had nothing against Avery, but both were caught in the exoneration crossfire, and their behavior could have prevented Avery from being convicted of the original rape.

See, there I go again. Just talking to you and remembering my own independent research about the whole key-and-blood situation, I'm leaning towards actually innocent again. I'll probably flop back the other way shortly. But that's why it's a complicated case. Netflix never shows both sides of everything. And FWIW, all the evidence we've been discussing is divulged in the Netflix documentary.