chillhelm @ chillhelm @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

108

Joined

2 yr. ago

Specifically for Ukraine there is also the fact that, when your country is under attack, nationalists are the first ones to sign up to fight the invaders. It's like their whole thing. And the intersection in the Venn diagram of Nazis and nationalists is usually almost a circle.

While it technically works it has massive issues.

After every patch I can play 1 match. Then I get kicked because some random file has a version mismatch. From there on the game will not let me back into the lobby screen because of version mismatches.

I've tried deleting the proton prefix, reinstalls on various ssds and hdds, different proton versions...

And it's definitely an Apex issue since a ton of other EAC games work just fine for me.

The only thing that actually works reliably is booting to Windows and playing it from there for me.

There is no issue with the source other than it not the new york times or the washington post or the bbc

1. NYT, WP or BBC are also suspect sources, especially when it comes to the Palestine conflict. You will not find me saying anything else.
2. Issues with the source you cited (that don't involve it's Hezbollah affiliation):
   • It's not the primary source (that appears to be the Haaretz article, but I can't confirm that, since that is paywalled)
   • It gets the name of one of the parties involved in the conflict wrong (it consistently refers to the IDF as IOF (replacing "Defense" with "Occupation"). I get why they do it (the IDF claims to "defend" an area that they are actually occupying), but that's not how you do journalism. Nobody thinks that North Korea is a democratic republic, but any news article about it will still refer to it as "DPRK - Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea". Because that's its name.

So pointing out that the source you posted is biased and potentially unreliable is fine. You citing another source (even one cited in the article itself) is completely par for the course. Hell, now I really would like to know, why you chose to post a secondary source when you had the primary source avaiable to you?

Isn't that how discourse is supposed to work though? If there are issues with the credibility of a source, it's fine to point those out. And then you respond with a different source to which the criticism does not apply.

Where is the issue?

This article seems bad.

The only sources cited are RAC (Retailers Against Crime) and their employees. If there really had been a major bust against organised crime as they claim, wouldn't there be confirmation by the Scottish police (who RAC is cited as claiming they cooperated with and made these arrests?).

So why is not a single government or police source being cited? Did they just copy a press release from RAC?

Immernoch kein inhaltliches Argument. Bye, Troll.

Apartheid ist kein Argument. Ich sage, Israel ist ein Staat in dem Apartheid praktiziert wird. Meine Argumente dafür sind, dass internationale Menschenrechtsorganisationen, das als solche bezeichnen. Jedes einzelne Argument aus deren Berichten herauszuzitieren würde nicht nur die Kommentarlänge hier sprengen, es würde notwendigerweise auch die komplexe Situation auf ein paar Schlagworte herunterbrechen, was ich nicht für hilfreich halte.

Du kannst also entweder ein inhaltliches Argument liefern oder zitieren, dass die zitierten Berichte inhaltlich angreift (und nein, Mitglieder dieser Organisation als Antisemiten zu bezeichnen ist kein inhaltliches Argument). Oder du kannst weiter sagen "Brauch ich nicht zu lesen, weil der das geschrieben hat ist Antisemit/Postkolonial/...".

Hier noch ein Link zu einer israelischen (und jüdischen) Menschenrechtsorganisation die findet Apartheid ist der korrekte Begriff:
https://www.btselem.org/topic/apartheid
Und ein Guardian Artikel über einen ehemaligen Mossadchef der die gleiche Meinung hat:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/06/israel-imposing-apartheid-on-palestinians-says-former-mossad-chief

Nur mal so interessehalber, welche Quelle würdest du akzeptieren? Weil jemand der vorher schonmal Israel kritisiert hat, darf es ja offenbar nicht sein. Ein vom Israelischen Parlament verabschiedetes Gesetz das nicht-jüdischen Bürger das Recht auf nationale Mitbestimmung abspricht, reicht auch nicht.

Israel ist halt nicht nur “ein” jüdischer Staat, sondern der einzige.

Das mag sein. Und man kann sogar argumentieren, dass das einen Grad von Apartheid rechtfertigt. Aber man muss der Tatsache ins Auge gucken, dass es nun mal genau das ist: Systematische, von der Regierung vorgeschriebene Diskriminierung basierend auf ethnischer oder religiöser Zugehörigkeit: Apartheid.

Dass dadurch aber die arabischen Israelis keinen Jota schlechter gestellt sind als vorher, das darf man ruhig öfter erwähnen.

Mindestens wird ihre Teilhabe am politischen Prozess von einem Recht zu einem Privileg degradiert. Privilegien können entzogen werden.

Jemandem Voreingenommenheit vorzuwerfen und dann UNWatch zu zitieren, die in ihrem eigenen Missionstatement auf ihrer Website direkt erklären, wie sie gegen Kritik an Israel sind, ist schon ein bisschen fragwürdig.

Du bist bestimmt besser als das.

Hier ist Amnesty International's Report, den gibts aber leider nicht auf deutsch:
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/02/israels-apartheid-against-palestinians-a-cruel-system-of-domination-and-a-crime-against-humanity/

Aber ich bin sicher du findest auch wieder Quellen die Mitgliedern oder Vorstandsvorsitzenden oder Aktivisten von AI Antisemitismus vorwerfen.

Hier also ein Zitat aus dem 2018 vom Israelischen Parlament verabschiedeten "Nationalgesetz":

Artikel 1: Die Ausübung des Rechts auf nationale Selbstbestimmung im Staate Israel gehört alleinig der jüdischen Bevölkerung.

Klingt für mich nicht so, als ob es da rechtstaatliche Gleichberechtigung zwischen den Bürgern Israels gäbe.

Wie gesagt, wenn man der allgemein anerkannten Definition von Apartheid folgt und nicht der eng gelegten historischen (als eine bestimmte Epoche in der südafrikanischen Geschichte), trifft die Definition zu. Nicht nur meine Meinung sondern die von HRW.

Ich glaub nicht dass ich das besser zusammenfassen könnte als deren Bericht.

In dem Interview sagte der Interviewte nur "Apartheid war wegen Rassismus und in Südafrika. In Israel sind die Leute in Gaza und der Westbank eingeschlossen wegen Terrorismus." Das Strohmänner aber das Apartheidsargument. Da geht es eben nicht nur um die Araber in der Westbank und Gaza sondern auch um alle Nichtjuden in Israel (auch Nichtjüdische Staatsbürger), die mit legaler Diskriminierung leben müssen.

Also wenn Diskriminierung vom Staat durchgesetzt wird, ist das ein Apartheidsregime. Oder muss es in Südafrika sein damit der Begriff angewendet werden kann?

I don't like the term "illusion of choice" or "railroad" for my style, even though I can see how people might think that's what's going on. The players don't get a choice in what major story beats are going to happen, which NPCs they meet and what set-piece encounters they experience. They do get a choice in what context they meet these people, where they are when they experience the major story beats and how to engage with the set-piece encounter.

For example: In my last session I wanted three things:

• the PCs to get some face time with the BBEG of the next little arc (a Dr. Mingel), (meet an NPC)
• have a chase scene through the busy streets of London during the day and (set piece encounter)
• have Dr. Mingel attempt to obduct an NPC (Mr. Fairstyle) that could become a major source of power to the PCs (story beat).

So a regular questgiver gave the PCs the task to find and protect this Fairstyle character (hook). How they go about this is their choice. But whatever they do, once they rolled two or three times successfully to find Mr. Fairstyle (be that through asking around amongst their contacts, using divination magic, or digging through the church register to find Mr. Fairstyle and his antecendants), they will get a solid clue to his location. He can be found in a public place where scandal is to be avoided. Once there, they find Mr. Fairstyle and Dr. Mingel already engaged in polite conversation, which they can join. They observe behaviour in Dr. Mingel that reveals him to be a bad guy. When leaving the public place either Mr. Fairstyle or Dr. Mingel will attempt to flee from them (depending on context and who they try to chase).

All of these things will happen. All of the details are up to my players. E.g. I did not know ahead of time that Mr. Fairstyle and Dr. Mingel would be in a Casino playing a rare card game that is only offered in this one place. It was a casino with a specific card game because thats what the trail of clues led the PCs too and the 3rd successful roll was when talking to a gambling guy who had met Mr. Fairstyle before (I hadn't fixed the number 3 before either, that was purely based on how much time they spent searching and what the mood was at the table, if we had gotten caught up in throwing back Monty Python quotes for half an hour a single roll would have sufficed and if the players were really into the investigation bit it would have taken them 5 or 7). The players decided to chase down Dr. Mingel when exiting the casino and leaving Mr. Fairstyle to fend for himself. So while they caught Dr. Mingel, his henchmen caught Mr. Fairstyle and while they try to get him back, (spoiler alert) Dr. Mingel will escape in their abscence.

Edit: Btw, they had killed a previous incarnation of Dr. Mingel without learning his name or talking to him. So the dead guy is now Dr. Mingels dear but insignificant assistant, for which he also wants to kill the players (long term). The story beat they hit there was "disrupt one of Dr. Mingels operations", and the set piece encounter was a fight in a warehouse full of chemicals. I would have liked it if "Dr. Mingel" had gotten away from that fight (in which case they would have recognised him in the casino), but "learn the BBEGs name" was not on the agenda for that session so they don't even know that they 1st turn killed the BBEG of an entire story arc. Because they didn't because that wasn't Dr. Mingel because that's not the context the players created.

Why have I never had that issue?

Do people really just write their adventures as a list of predefined conditions and consequences and if players dont meet the condition, the consequence just never happens?

I would go mad. Just write what you want the PCs to learn, who the bad guys are and what they want to do, and what the players get as a reward for stopping them.

All the rest just flows from there?

If your players walk away from your hooks then they don't want story, just throw random encounters from a table at them.

Actually, no.

The science is quite precise, if largely theoretical. Neither the article nor the study it is based on are doomerism. If you'd read it you would have found the following paragraph:

Their results showed that we're not necessarily headed for certain climate doom. We might follow quite a regular and predictable trajectory, the endpoint of which is a climate stabilization at a higher average temperature point than what we have now.

Basically they are saying "this new method (which is a very macroscale perspective) does not predict a stabilization at preindustrial climate given the amount of change the system already has experienced. Also if we really want to we can probably kick earth into a runaway greenhouse system".

They do not claim that we are already at that point nor that we will inevitably cross it. Only that it is possible for us to do it.

Command & Conquer Red Alert (I think 2 as well)

You can find them at openra.net

They have reimplementation of Command & Conquer, Red Alert and Dune 2000. Excellent work really.

Imagine the old black&white but with chatgpt level creature AI and propper gesture recognition...

Yes. And that's worse.

It was a "Game Disc" and a "Video Disc". You could choose to copy the Videos during install or you would have to physically swap discs when you got to a rendered cutscene (which was only between acts, but still).

Because they see "Jew" and think "Zionist".

I'm not down voting you because I disagree with your pick, but because this answer needs to be at the very bottom of the thread.