amio @ amio @kbin.social

Posts

0

Comments

906

Joined

2 yr. ago

Because when you simply ask for donations, the vast majority of people don't.

nothin personnel, kid

I just thought "hur hur, Nazeem" and save scumming skill checks, dice rolls and tricky input in mostly singleplayer games, without any nasty precedence or concurrency issues. Extending it to multiplayer and also being inside the game seems, uh, complicated. I'll give it an undercaffeinated try:

Each player gets an individual "marker" they can place at their current time, and a function to restore the entire universe state to that point.
"Whose marker is when" seems like it needs to be part of that state. Otherwise, reverting and then having someone else reload a formerly earlier, now future/orphaned state... just sounds like a clusterfuck. Or it's unproblematic and just weird, I'm not sure.

Keeping memories across reloads would at least not happen "naturally", since everyone has their exact brain state reverted. You could just say it does for the purposes of the experiment, but it seems like it makes things more complicated.
At least, remembering stuff through someone else's reload is right out: everyone on the planet quickly ends up with a bunch of memories that have no longer happened, and no way to tell what's what. Psych horror time!

Whoever saves first does get to revert everything since then, but assuming no memory retention, you could still safely shit talk your boss all day long, at least. If their checkpoint reverts yours, they will forget the rant, you can still revert. It would be further back than you intended then, but you would be blissfully unaware of that fact. Of course, you also wouldn't remember the rant, so it doesn't sound very cathartic either.

But, if memories are retained, Boss could reload on you - they now remember the rant and you don't, which sounds like a bad Christmas Party. While reloading would still be a win for you, you wouldn't know to actually do it, and could risk saving at a position where you've screwed yourself. Common risk of save scumming.

Saves, especially save states/quicksave. Some kind of way to tell you what is actually the correct answer, not just what someone thinks is, or wants to be, the correct answer. Enough predictability to give you a reasonable shot at things.

I'm seeing a lot of uncited claims. If these are just conjecture or opinion you could be clearer on it. If they're not, citing sources is probably a good idea.

This is an outrage.

I have absolutely no idea. "So how have you been doing since ruining my life? IV drug abuse? That's awesome, man, heard about that one through the grapevine and it gave me some... well, not joy, of course, but definitely a bit of grim satisfaction. Maybe there's something to this karma thing after all, eh?"

Which inaccurate doomer myths? Because every time I hear this, it's "well, I'm sure that'll be ni-aaaaaaand it's climate denialism"

It ain't easy being beans.

Sure. They're so "far left" (Marxist-Leninist, allegedly) they're all the way up an unrepentant, fascistic, oligarchic, autocratic, right wing dictator's asshole. Presumably the "logic" is that at least Russia used to be communist, and isn't "amerikkka" (staggeringly witty stuff, huh?), but it's pretty clear they're just trolls - or nearly undistinguishable from trolls. That is not effort I'd recommend wasting on their dumb asses.

Speaking as a mildly militant atheist, this is some of the smartest shit I've ever seen a religious adherent say.

They definitely have some of the ideas of all time. The purported real ones, anyway, I'm sure.

... wow. Best of luck with that.

SQLite for almost everything I've ever done that wasn't professional. In those cases it's "whatever the project already uses, or else postgres".

As long as it isn't a shoehorned-in freaking document database that's being used on relational data.

GIIINOOOOO!

I'm not sure it's a specifically named one, but then again there are dozens, and they're hard to keep straight. In general it is (attempted) rationalization, hand-waving, and kinda... just a bad argument. It does not actually explain why that specific murder was "necessary" - only that it could've been.

The intent is to rationalize, but it might not get close enough to a real argument to pin down to a specific (in)formal fallacy.

Specifically what is your problem with those? You haven't really explained anywhere in the thread. It's kinda relevant for knowing what to recommend.

I've seen this without the slur, but it's still weird that people are out here trying to redefine specific, well-defined, unambiguous, basic, and universal English terms. Not as a metaphor, not even as a bit, or attempted point (luckily, as it wouldn't have been a good one), just using a term in a way apparently nobody else ever does.

But there's absolutely nothing linking any then-or-since Norwegian Prime minister to the 22 July attack? I say this as a Norwegian - not only is the original joke simply not offensive in any way, it is hard to try to envision any way it might be. How hard would one have to try to find something objectionable about this?

Seems like a way to foist off the responsibility for shitty communication on the supernaturally-supposed-to-be-recipient, in my opinion.