GoodbyeBlueMonday @ GoodbyeBlueMonday @startrek.website

Posts

0

Comments

144

Joined

2 yr. ago

It's almost funnier than Frank providing a certificate that he doesn't have "Donkey Brains" in It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TT4vVLvvb2U

You're both in luck! Someone else linked to an article that breaks down how it could work in reality: https://startrek.website/comment/9430643

Truly. I didn't know a song could make me cry until I listened to Billy Austin, a song Earle wrote about the death penalty.

I appreciate that you gave it a listen! Hopefully you appreciated it

I know y'all are quoting System of a Down, so I want to share a country song about exactly this...because the difference in the musical styles is neat. One of my favorites by Steve Earle: Rich Man's War.

It's a song I've always loved for the direct message of rich people using poor folks as soldiers in wars...but also the way it weaves in a larger economic picture about the decisions by the rich that put people in the very desperate positions that they later exploit.

Yeah: go back to the nineties and the man arguably most responsible for the hyper-partisanship in modern politics was also a rep in Georgia...Newt Filthypigfucker Gingrich

To try to answer, succinctly (which I'm bad at): looking backward is easier than looking forward. What I mean by that is since you didn't get into the series until 3, it makes sense that you wouldn't have a problem with 3 and 4, since it's harder to see what the series could have been...as pretentious as that sounds.

Where much of the hate comes from (and I think a lot of it is overblown - I'm not trying to justify the behavior of the maniacs out there) is that the overarching progression of the series feels reset. Fallout 1 -> Fallout 2 showed a progression in a *post-*post-apocalyptic world, with society advancing again, to some degree. Shady Sands grew between 1 and 2, and was the foundation of the NCR.

So Fallout 3 at the time was IMHO a disappointment because the setting felt more generic, and like they were just playing the greatest hits from 1 and 2. I get the arguments that the setting in-universe was hit harder, but it still felt weird that it was post-apocalpytic instead of post-post-apocalyptic.

One reason (as always, IMHO) that New Vegas was so popular is that it continued to build on 1 and 2. We saw the NCR had continued to grow, other factions rise in importance, and generally felt less like the bombs had dropped the year prior. It's what a lot of folks hoped Fallout 3 would be, in that sense. That's my own biased view though, so take it with a grain of salt - there's folks who want more humor, only isometric, more complex and branching storylines, etc.

Plenty of folks do worry about the possibility of being sued though, so getting rid of a chilling effect is good. Not everyone wants to even deal with the legal struggle or anxiety that would come with that, so it's good. It gives workers more rights, which is good.

I think I'm confused though about your second paragraph: do you mean that companies only enforce these things on big names, who have money to defend themselves anyway? If so, seems like there'd definitely be a chilling effect for anyone making less, unless they're willing to take a chance.

Half-Life: Alyx is mostly what I hoped we'd get from HL3, inasmuch as it hits your points a & b for sure, and IMHO c (though I know that's not agreed on by everyone). It had great action and expository setpieces (avoiding spoilers), and the (albeit relatively simple) puzzles definitely added something to Half-Life that really worked for me.

Unfortunately it didn't solve all VR issues (melee being an obvious one), and not least of which the cost. I played it on a cheap (~$100), janky old WMR headset, but not everyone can do that without vomiting, so a great PC and good headset are a hefty price, which is probably the biggest hurdle for a full-scale 3 in VR. Especially considering there just aren't many other games worth making that investment in, IMHO. I played the hell out of Alyx, a little of a few other games...but Alyx was the pinnacle of what VR could do for me.

This book speaks to it better than I can: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/david-graeber-bullshit-jobs/

Specifically take a look at

Chapter 3: Why Do Those in Bullshit Jobs Regularly Report Themselves Unhappy? (On Spiritual Violence, Part 1)

Clearly he saw something that the Deep State is trying to hide, and now's the chance to see it for ourselves.

Alyx was incredible though! Way more than a tech demo (though I get the argument that it was a test to see if folks would pick up a VR Half-life 3). I played it on a cheap, used WMR headset and an old PC that could barely keep up, and it still stays in my top five videogaming experiences.

It's a great example to bring up though, because I'd bet it wouldn't have been made if the studio was only chasing money instead of trying to innovate.

Never used one myself, but apparently lightly spinning them helps the honey not drip because it's so viscous. Stop spinning it and it can be drizzled.

Had to search online because I never understood why one would not just use a spoon either, but if it means there's not as many little honey trails on the edge of the container, I can see the point. Learned something new today!

Exactly: or take folks who live in the tropics (about 40% of the human population) where it feels cold below 60F.

Agreed. They depressed me as a kid, and they depress me now. Absolutely exploiting the most impoverished among us. Vimes' Boot Theory holds there IMHO: https://terrypratchett.com/explore-discworld/sam-vimes-boots-theory-of-socio-economic-unfairness/

Thank you for explaining what your point was, but it's absolutely a non sequitur. My original point was about the validity of criticizing something because it's happening by more than one bad actor. Not quibbling about whether an small part of my statement ("little influence") is 100% correct or not. My point wasn't about litigating whether or not the US is a democracy, so: it was a non sequitur.

That said, it's clearly a waste of time to engage with you, because if you're going to be bent out of shape for being "accused" of a non sequitur and then start calling me "a schlub that lives in a fascist empire", then you don't have the temperament to actually fight a fascist empire. Some of us do more than vote and complain online.

Thanks, I respect your take too. I fully understand that I'm an optimist, and will desperately cling to any shred of hope we have. Not a position everyone holds, and I don't hold it against anyone to not have hope for humanity's future, as much as it conflicts with my own thoughts. In any case, I hope you have a good one! Thanks for a good discussion.

That's entirely my point though: we can't reason with a deadly virus, but we can with most humans. Or at least some humans. OK maybe a few. The point is, I don't think it's logical to throw in the towel.

That isn't human exceptionalism in my view, either: because I don't believe we're inherently special animals when it comes to how we treat the environment. My point is that most animals inherently exploit resources, and drive others to extinction. We just managed to make guns and power tools and propaganda. Once humans are gone, we have no reason to think that any species that manages to start some technologically advanced civilization will be any better. So either we eradicate all biological life to ensure that it doesn't eradicate biological life...or we try to improve humanity, because despite things, we can often be reasoned with. Humanity has gotten better, even though it hasn't improved enough, when looking at human civilization over the last few thousand years. That's my point: not that we don't deserve calamity, but that we can - if we fight hard enough - try to steer our own species toward a better future for everyone.

Who knows though, maybe if humanity is gone the bonobos will rise up to take our place. They're pretty chill, all things considered.

Another non sequitur, and in any case not what I said (nor implied, unless you read my reply in bad faith).

That's a non sequitur at best.

That's the easy way out. Please stick around and help the rest of us try to steer humanity in the right direction. Help the moral arc of the universe bend a little faster. It's hard work, and most of us won't see much of a return. But long-term, let's hope that humanity can.

To clarify: I'm a biologist. The perspective you've taken is basically "Noble Savage" but for animals. Animals are pushed to extinction all the time. Yes, we're incredibly good at it, and we're good at coming up with highfalutin reasons for killing things, but look at chimps, ants, dolphins...nature is brutal. It sucks to be most animals. Say a habitat changes, and a species "needs" to move into an adjacent similar habitat that's already occupied by one or more species exploiting those resources? Extinction of something is pretty likely. That's all very much an oversimplification, of course, but this is a lemmy comment.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111310 https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/when-it-comes-waging-war-ants-humans-have-lot-common-180972169/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War

The hope I have is our intelligence. The fact that you recognize this existential threat is more than a badger is capable of.