squaresinger @ squaresinger @lemmy.world

Posts

5

Comments

697

Joined

4 mo. ago

Thanks for spotting the typo

... says the armchair porkbelly revolutionary.

How many revolutions did you fight in, mighty keyboard warlord?

On the home turf, yes it does. Also, the US only committed a fraction of their military power in these wars. Do you think the same would happen when the war zone was the US itself?

Lemmy also doesn't make that easy, since it's not like e.g. Reddit or the phpBB forums of old, where everyone moderates on their own turf only, but each instance has to essentially moderate all other communities on all other instances too.

That's what you get if you believe that laws written a quarter millenium ago are still some kind of holy infallable scripture.

Weapons have changed enormously since then and so has every part of society.

Back when the 2nd ammendment was written, the average weapon of the military and of private citizens would be about the same: front-loaded, single-shot gun. Soldiers had very low standards of training and militias still formed the backbone of the military.

It's totally possible for a large amount of private citizens to stand a decent chance against the military.

Nowadays a private citizen would have some kind of gun, while the military has tanks, planes, missiles and aircraft carriers. Even if half the country would take up arms, they'd stand no chance against the US military, which makes the whole point of "resisting unlawful government" moot.

You might not. Finance and wikipedia does.

There's a reason many big corporations have pulled out of online advertisment and focus on print/radio/TV/sponsorships instead: The effectiveness of online advertisment can be measured and it sucks royally.

The whole concept of marketing is just a huge game of "the emperor's new clothes". Nobody wants to be blamed if they stop doing marketing and it turns out to actually do have an effect, even if everyone secretly knows it's garbage.

Some of them are ok, but none of them would make a list of "best board games".

If you got left-over humus, but it into your flower pots.

Nice claim you have there. Do you have anything to back that up?

If it's so easy, it shouldn't be hard for you to link a model like that.

Tbh, marketing is mostly just a scam to funnel money to marketing people.

Please, explain to me how the “No true Scotsman” fallacy doesn’t apply to the argument.

Yeah, sure, let's do that. Throwing out some random fallacy names without understanding what the fallacy actually is is easy. Actually understanding what the referenced fallacy actually means is more difficult.

So let's go to the Wikipedia definition:

The "no true Scotsman" fallacy is committed when the arguer satisfies the following conditions:[3][4][6]

• not publicly retreating from the initial, falsified a posteriori assertion
• offering a modified assertion that definitionally excludes a targeted unwanted counterexample
• using rhetoric to signal the modification

So u/andros_rex said:

I wish Christians in red states were Christians.

That was their initial assertion, which asserted that those who call themselves "Christians" in red states don't follow the definition of what Christians are.

To which you answered:

They are whether you like that or not.

So we have an initial assertion, which you didn't falsify, you just claimed that it was false.

To which u/ABetterTomorrow (note, a different user) answered

^understanding falls short.

Which means, the original commenter didn't change anything about the original assertion, and neither did u/ABetterTomorrow.

Since no modification happened, points 2 and 3 or the definition of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy don't apply either.

The whole situation really has nothing to do with the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, except of sub-groups within a larger group being part of an argument.

Which makes your argument that this is a "no true Scotsman" fallacy in fact a strawman argument, which itself is a fallacy.

Do you now understand what the "no true Scotsman" fallacy is and why you should actually try to understand what terms mean before using them?

Edit: What's also important to know is why is the "no true Scotsman" fallacy a fallacy? It's because the argument becomes a tautology, something that's always true. "No true Scotsman will do X" means "A Scotsman who does X is no true Scotsman, thus no true Scotsman does X". That's always true, so it doesn't mean anything. It takes the original claim "No true Scotsman will do X" and transforms it into a meaningless argument. That's the fallacious part.

What u/andros_rex actually said meant was "If you don't follow Christ's teachings, you shouldn't call yourself a Christian". It's a subtile difference, but an important one. The "no true Scotsman" fallacy argues against doing X by saying that no true Scotsman would be doing X. But what u/andros_rex argues for is that these supposed Christians don't live up to the standards of Christ/being a Christian. It's basically the opposite reasoning.

I think they might have meant the second commandment.

Roughly 30% of published, peer-reviewed scientific studies are estimated to be not reproducible. Because nobody takes peer reviews seriously and everyone is just rewarded for publishing, no matter how much of it is garbage.

Remember the "chocolate helps you lose weight" study that went through every stupid newspaper? It was obvious garbage, employing p-hacking, using a fake researcher's name, using a made-up university institute. And yet it went through peer review without issue, was published in a journal and was picked up by every newspaper under the sun.

Then the author stepped forward and said he only created this fake study to show how easy it is to publish a garbage paper. The thing he didn't expect was that nobody cared. Nobody printed anything about him retracting his own obviously fake study. No consequences at all were taken to his finding.

Because everyone is incentivized to publish every piece of toilet paper they can find, and nobody cares about the quality.

The huge majority of indie games never make any money at all. This link is a little older, but it claims that 50% of indie games on steam never make more than $4000, only 25% ever make more than $26 000 and only 14% cross the $100k mark.

Considering the cost of developers, that's about 1-2 man years for the $100k mark, and then there's only a 14% chance of even recouping that.

Passion projects work out because the people making them don't value their time as work time, don't make a salary from it, and even then in the huge majority of cases, it doesn't work out financially.

Imagine having 10k employees and not setting aside an indie dev team or two for passion projects.

This statement holds true for pretty much every other corporation. Imagine owning a huge farm and not setting aside a few farm hands to grow old artisan vegetables. Imagine owning a supermarket chain and not setting aside a few shops for exotic sweets from Central Africa. Imagine owning a fast food chain and not setting aside a few restaurants for artisan burger variations.

Yes, every corporation could afford to do stuff like that, but they aren't there to advance humanity by investing in arts and crafts, but for making every last drop of money they can. And yes, there's much to criticise about this goal, but making little indie passion projects doesn't work well with corporations.

So, when I mention the Assassin’s Creed / Far Cry / GTA triangle I really mean to say the poor imitators of those games.

That only happened in the 2010s. That's when the Ubisoft formula really took off. Assassin's Creed 1 was only released in 2007, Far Cry 2 in 2008 (FC1 was a quite different game). GTA also only started to get imitated in the 2010s.

Open World in that sense (non-scripted encounters that can be approached from many different angles, with a "living" world) only became a thing in the late 2000s, precisely because of games like Assassin's Creed and Far Cry 2.

I remember reading a pre-release article about Far Cry 2 in a game magazine, where were all hyped about the many different ways a player could take out an enemy camp, e.g. go in guns blazing, or set a fire that would spread to the camp, or startle wild animals which then would stampede through the camp.

While I do get your point about hand-crafted deterministic enemy placement, it's just two different kinds of approaches that work for different players.

When you say "dumbed-down", I understand you mean that the difficulty was too low, is that correct? While some players love or even need punishing difficulty levels, others play for other reasons. (Maybe check out the Bartle taxonomy of player types. It's a bit outdated, but it shows some of these different reasons quite well.) If you want to just kick back and relax after a hard day of work, punishing difficulty might not be the right thing. Some players want to have to learn (or even memorize) levels/bosses/encounters and repeat them repeatedly until they know exactly which button to press when, and that's fine. For others that's just tedious busywork, everyone's different. I quite enjoyed Far Cry 2 and its random encounters and having to adapt to different scenarios all the time.

I haven’t played the rest of the games you list, so I can’t offer an opinion on them, though I have heard that KOTOR was very good.

Forgive me for saying that, but it's quite harsh to call a whole decade of games uncreative if you haven't played a lot of the greatest and most creative games of that time.

To get back to the original point:

20 years ago people were complaining about the same lack of creativity in the AAA scene, saying that gaming was better in the 90s. In fact I remember it was a common talking point that AAA gaming had gotten so bad that there would surely be another crash like the one in '83.

That was in the 2010s, not in the 2000s. In the 90s, game development was pretty much completely low-budget, with games rarely having more than 5 programmers on staff, and maybe 5-10 content creators. In the 2000s games started getting bigger, but the studios were still led by game developers, not by finance dudes. Budgets were still not nearly where they are today. Assassins Creed 1, for example, had a budget of $20mio. Compare that to e.g. the $175mio that AC Valhalla cost to make. And AC1 was comparatively expensive back then.

It was only in the 2010s when finance really got into gaming, budgets ballooned and risks were lowered to nothing.

It's an old, outdated joke, that wasn't funny 17 years ago and hasn't gotten any better in the time since.

You have to be pretty brain dead to think that repeating the same lame joke for 17 years would make it any better.

So many people think board games are just not something they like. And if you ask them what they played before, it's always any combination of Monopoly, Scrabble, Clue, Trivial Pursuit, Risk or the Game of Life.

If you look at the list of the top 20 best selling games of all time (https://moneyinc.com/highest-selling-board-games-of-all-time/), all of them are somewhere between terrible, bad and lower end of mediocre.

It shows that capitalism will market anything, even critique against capitalism.

It's the board game equivalent of people buying Che Guevara T-shirts at Primark.

Tbh, these artist renditions are almost completely made up. They are made up, because the press won't print a "We found a piece of bone shrapnel and we guess it might belong to a dinosaur", but they totally will print a nice image of a dinosaur from Jurassic Park, no matter if it's truthful or just purely made up.

Science is hard and getting proper science published in regular non-scientific press is even harder, unless you make crap up.

That's why the fake "chocolate helps you loose weight" study made it into every newspaper front page in existence, while the reveal by the author that the study was faked was completely not covered at all. (He did that to expose how easy it is to get fake science published. He just didn't expect how little anyone in media cared whether the science published is actually science.)

Real science is hard. Fake science is easy. Debunks and negative peer reviews are just not published. Hence, there's a huge amount of garbage science floating around and hardly anyone disputes it. Because of blind, unquestioning, religious faith in science.