a lil bee 🐝 @ alilbee @lemmy.world

Posts

2

Comments

407

Joined

2 yr. ago

Right, so you wanted them to use a valuable chunk of time codifying a right that was not being actively threatened at that time, instead of focusing on the more immediate needs of their constituents? They would have been lambasted for playing politics instead of doing their jobs. Hell, if Ginsberg would have stepped down, we'd still have enshrined repro rights. If the Justice/McConnell situation played out different, we'd still have enshrined repro rights. Hindsight is 20/20, but nobody was focusing on abortion the way they are now, and there were multiple points of failure to get us to the point of it being threatened.

Frankly, it's clear to me that you have very little idea of how the civic process works. I know this won't get through, but I'll stress it anyway: making these big forceful statements while not understanding the process and context of what you're complaining about makes you contribute to the mental degeneration that is eroding our politics. You should feel ashamed, honestly. You're not approaching conversations with any amount of self-critique or awareness, and it really shows.

They didn't "do nothing". They passed a lot of major legislation, including the ACA. The supermajority lasted for 72 days. How much competent legislation do you expect to be passed in 72 days?

You will bleed integrity with every one of those shortcuts you take. You say "let's skip it and just do the right thing". What can you not justify with that? You can excuse genocides, coups, war crimes. I don't just have a problem with Trump's motivations, but also his means. That approach, always correlated with populism, is foolish and always, always tends to oppression.

You have major misconceptions about how the government works and instead of being self-aware and saying "hmm, maybe the situation is more complex than I understand", you point your anger outward at those actually doing things day-to-day to combat this? It's just sad.

Oh fwiw, I agree with your parent comment completely. It's just fairly self-evident that the majority of progressive voters are young, which is a demographic with turnout issues, historically. I think progressives both think that people who think like them are more numerous than they are (which is likely a bias of all citizens, if I had to guess) and that they have fairly unique issues with turnout given their age group. Either way, they have to adjust if they want to actually win or achieve anything on their own. Until then, they're gonna have to rely on those pesky pragmatic party politicians they hate so much.

Electoral results for the last 50 years?

For all your noble ideals, you and much of the left has accomplished so little to achieve them. I share almost all of your convictions, but I value the people who can turn those dreams into a realistic plan and actually achieve it. That's why democrats have won my right to marry others of my gender. Democrats have won my partner healthcare. You want more, but what have you ever actually won for me? I value your ideas, but you should stop hating your allies that spend blood, sweat, and tears getting what is feasible into reality. You can't just ignore that you have obstacles and foes in your way who are going to chip away at what we all can do.

At the end of the day, we could be so much more productive together, focused on being better. Support and encourage to push things in your direction. Say "yes, and let's do more!" instead of "no, you should be doing this". We have complex problems to solve and nothing but imperfect people to fix them.

Sometimes, yep. A small handful of decades ago, "the people" would have wanted gay marriage banned forever. Before that, interracial marriage. Before that, women's suffrage. I want a system that enacts good, just law in a stable manner and while I always think democracy should be a part of any system I would be a part of, pure democracy has no effective way of ensuring minority rights.

That's answering your question in the abstract. For this situation specifically, of course I want democratic, progressive legislation passed. In fact, I want to maximize the amount of democratic progress over the longest period of time, to the point where I'm willing to take losses on smaller items for the bigger picture.

I'm not much of a centrist really. I guess maybe on the global scale, but I'm a pretty average socdem. I'm not creating excuses for them at all. I'm mostly happy with what Democrats have accomplished and warded off for me and the country in my lifetime, so there's nothing for me to excuse. There's always room to grow and improve, for sure, but expecting perfection and my entire wishlist is ignoring those pesky real world obstacles again.

Listen, spend your time shaking your fist at the democrats and ignoring the realities of politics all you like, but it's not pragmatic. Again, I have my complaints, but overall I'm pleased with the way that democrats have operated recently. AOC is even a Democrat! It's a big party with a lot of viewpoints, but has a throughline of empathy, minority rights, and democracy. There have been wins that have personally affected me in massive ways, almost entirely won by democrats.

This is spot on. Politics is all trolley problems. Biden is the one pulling the lever and there are certainly fair criticisms to be pointed at the set of actions taken within a realpolitik approach to this, but this relationship can be stretched or stressed, not broken. If it breaks, the humanitarian crisis to follow is magnitudes worse than the current conflict.

You talk about "acceptable" and "deserving" but you have to realize that power is the only thing that matters in the end. They get power, they enact their whims. They don't, they can't. Right now, they have it, so you have to negotiate. That's it, that's just how it works.

People who complain about the Overton window are wasting their time. You don't get to control that. Focus on winning what is possible with the window you have to work in. Expand that window if and when you can. Refusing to participate until the window looks like what you want it to is just ineffective.

And I just don't agree with your characterization of the dems. I have my problems with their direction or actions at times, but they've fought and won for my rights and for the rights of various others in my lifetime. I do consider the more leftist parts of the party to be allies, but I'm not willing to give complete credit for those victories to only that wing of the party. I think it's really disingenuous to look at the victories won for LGBT rights, climate change, and healthcare in the last 20 years (incomplete as they may be), and just write off the work done by democrats to achieve those.

If you act as if you have leverage you don't and refuse to engage with those who have power, your only choice is obstruction. This is what the Republicans are learning right this moment. Now, lucky for them, obstruction happens to coincide pretty well with their political objectives. For anything "constructive" though, they fail time and time again because none of them know how to compromise.

Politics is compromising with factions to achieve your goals. I loathe some of the things we have to compromise on, but these people exist and they will have representation in our government for as long as they do.

Oh yeah, they should do what the Republicans are doing and use a scorched earth, no compromise strategy! I mean, geez, look at all these huge legislative wins accomplished by this congress using this strategy. Maybe we can even have a cool purity-test driven speaker role, that's been working well for them! Anything else we should imitate that I'm forgetting? A demagogic, unrestrained president would definitely tie things up nicely.

Okay I'll stop being a sarcastic jerk now, but you get the point. This strategy from Republicans works wonders when it comes to obstructing and shutting things down, but you're never going to build anything with it. It's destructive at its core.

I'm not arguing that anything is good or bad. I'm all for people modding their single player games. I've played Frankenstein Skyrim myself many times. I'm a big fan. All that said, this game has a multiplayer element through Galactic Warfare and matchmaking co-op. I think anticheat is entirely reasonable in those scenarios. You can say the multiplayer-lite GW feature isn't worth the limitation (I would probably share that view), but AC is not evil in all situations. It's just kind of entwined with certain online multiplayer features, to avoid the equivalent of "Boaty McBoatFace" happening when trolls hit critical mass in your game.

I'm a DevOps engineer by trade, and do a lot of work with network security. "Never trust anything on the other side of a connection" is fine and all as a rule of thumb, but real solutions have more nuance than that. What is "trust"? Should I just never connect to anything? Obviously we have to, so we're already assuming some level of "trust". There are always degrees of trust, and a peer to peer game server is a higher degree than browsing a site hosted by a server, is what I think the developer meant.

Now, I agree with you, this shouldn't be some full substitute for proper network security or whatever, but I don't think they've given any indication that's the case. I can also speak from experience that certain choices in tooling are thrust upon dev teams at times, for cost or "political" reasons. It's also fully possible it's just a bad call from a techie who worked on a prior project with it or something.

Hey, I'm not arguing that mtx are a good thing for consumers or anything like that, and I'm with you that they've had an adverse effect on progression systems. I just see the logic in their reasoning for having anticheat. Anything client side could be subverted by those same cheats, and it still wouldn't address the second issue of the impact on the shared galactic conflict feature. All that said, this was a poor choice of implementation and I don't think it will pay off for them. I don't think you'd be seeing the same backlash if it was something like EAC. Maybe from the techy crowd on Lemmy, but not from the average consumer.

The developer lays out their reasons:

HELLDIVERS 2 is a co-op/PvE game, why do we even need Anti-Cheat?

That's a great question, and there's two related but separate points to it:

First, we want everyone to have a great time playing HELLDIVERS 2, with friends, ex-friends or randoms. What we've seen in some of our and others' games is that rampant cheating tends to have a very negative effect on players openness to playing, especially with randoms.

There's an anecdote from HELLDIVERS 1 I'd like to share:

When we released HELLDIVERS 1 on PC there was effectively no anti-cheat implemented. Additionally HELLDIVERS 1 uses a peer-to-peer networking model, and that means, from a security perspective, each game client will blindly trust each other.

Shortly after release we noticed there was a cheat going around which granted 9999 research samples. Unfortunately any non-cheaters in the same mission would also be granted 9999 research samples. These non-cheating players now had their entire progression ruined through no fault of their own.

We were able to deal with a lot of these early issues without using a third party solution, but it took a lot of work, and most of it was done reactively.

Incidentally HELLDIVERS 2 also uses a peer-to-peer networking model, but this time around we're trying to be more proactive and make sure everyone can play the intended experience.

Second is the Galactic War. There's this huge metagame going in the cloud which all players (and game clients) participate in. Even though we have other countermeasures in place, a cracked game client could make it easier to disrupt the Galactic War, which would sour everyone’s experience

I think those are reasonable explanations for anti cheat having a place in their game. I've been hit with that example scenario before in other games and it just ruins the fun entirely for a lot of progression-driven players, like me.

What I haven't seen a good answer for is the reason for this AC solution specifically. It seems like they could have gone for something much more popular and compatible than what they did. If it was for cost reasons, I think that's a short sighted decision. Regardless, it has me thinking twice about a game I was fairly certain about trying, so that's disappointing.

I disagree. If Biden was anywhere near that level, we'd be seeing him use much more power to at the very least earn some political capital he needs going into a contentious election. Most of the time this gets brought out, it's for transferring arms to Israel. Regardless of your opinions on the transfer itself, which I also disagree with, it's at least arguable those transfers are legal. Someone else in this thread linked more info. If it's not that, I'm going to need to see some examples of overreach that come anywhere close to the Trump admin.

I'll probably get eaten alive by this comment section, but I'll try anyway. I think there is more nuance here.

Trump has no respect for the rule of law, checks and balances, or the intended role of the executive branch. Trump at president will do anything possible to achieve his goals, no matter what he tramples along the way.

Biden isn't that type of president. He does respect checks and balances and the idea of a powerful, but constrained presidency. He's not going to go slam through a blatantly unconstitutional EO every time he doesn't get his "wall".

Much like before Trump, if you want change, you have to vote for more than the presidency, unless you're willing to trample everything about the three branches of government. And maybe you're also looking for an unleashed sort of populist presidency, but that's not going to fly with the majority of democratic voters who still want to return to some degree of governmental normalcy.