Lurker > ZMythos

I trust that he's driven to steer America more into the gutters of fascism.

It's fine in some games. Breath of the Wild did it well since most weapons were pretty good overall so breaking one wasn't a big deal.

Tears of the Kingdom did it even better with fusion. If you were any good at the game you almost always had your strong weapons for big bosses ready to go and swapped to mid, easy to make weapons for mob enemies.

Both games rewarded exploring a lot with useful weapons and tools, so you would never really be in a bad situation if you did even the bare minimum planning and exploring.

myusernameislame posted...

As far as 3D platformers go I think Spyro 2 and 3 are pretty solid. Certainly not as sluggish as most similar games.

A better camera would have helped. But the water levels were pretty fun.

Minecraft did a good enough job with it imo. Swimming feels fast and the challenge of combat/mining underwater is present but not insurmountable in the early-mid game.

Magician implies it's not actual magic, aka sleight of hand, deception, and rigged props. That's exactly how their signature move Flower Trick works.

The ability magician steals a foe's held item on contact as well.

I stand against any conservative who wants this conflict to continue because they literally believe it will bring about Armageddon and the Rapture.

Revisited posted...

I think didyouknowgaming or whomever did a post about why the shinies in pokemon are like 80% green, something to do with pallete swaps something or other?

That video (and others like it) are half-true.

Every pokemon's shiny sprite was hard-coded, but many of them used the pallet swap as a jumping off point.

Someone tried to find a function that outputs the expected shiny sprites using the most likely pallet swap, and it didn't work in every case.

Fascist prick.

Glaceon

There's 12 new maps along with cosmetics. No skins or weapons.

https://steamcharts.com/app/440

I really hope with all my heart that Valve has plans for this game. It's still so popular and fun after 16 years.

As naive as it sounds, it'd be great if the US/UN could just magically extract every civilian in the area and relocate them to a safe neutral area.

TendoDRM posted...

Homeschooling and charter schools should be banned.

I agree with the latter, not the former.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

I color code my balls as well, but Reshiram has a boosted catch rate in BW (It was lowered to the standard legendary rate as of ORAS)

Hinga Dinga Durgun

IronChef_Kirby posted...

It seems incredibly insulting to teachers to act as if simply popping out a baby magically makes someone an expert in pedagogy. It's scary to me that homeschooling is on the rise.

I personally appreciate the sentiment here. While I don't necessarily feel insulted, I'm moreso concerned about the direction public perception on education has been going for the past two decades.

I think parents are an important stakeholder in a child's education. They're often the first ones to notice and advocate for children with disabilities. They're responsible for teaching discipline, responsibility, and hygiene at home. I don't want to discredit the role parents have in child development, nor do I want to draw a dividing line between schools and homes. There is plenty of room for productive overlap and that should be the goal we as a society should continue to strive for.

I'm a high school mathematics teacher. My sister has 5 kids and homeschools. She also married into an evangelical Christian family that also homeschooled.

I have my concerns and opinions to say the least.

I believe that parents should have the right to homeschool, but there needs to be standards, oversight, public funding, public resources, and public training.

In many communities, schools are the number one source of education, nutrition, physical activity, safety, and social interaction for kids and adolescents. Teachers and staff are some of the first responders in a physical or emotional crisis and are mandatory reporters of abuse, neglect, or mental health concerns.

We are trained and educated to understand developmental psychology, pedagogy, epistemology, and of course our content area. Most parents have none of this training nor experience. Should they choose to homeschool then they need to demonstrate competency and get publicly funded supports founded in educator-led research and practices for teaching their kids.

Conservatives are doing everything in their power to dismantle public education and replace it with for-profit private and charter schools; all of which would be founded in religious and political indoctrination. Homeschooling and fearmongering about public schools are other tools they're using to further this agenda.

You can criticize a comedian without putting on clown makeup and comparing him to Donald Trump.

Bill is a fucking idiot and he needs to shut up and retire from the public eye.

Before this conversation continues to devolve, the Sinema point was not a good one and I've been walking back on it with each reply.

However, that does not discredit my argument. We are talking about the efficacy (not the likelihood of it happening, mind you. We're presupposing it's possible as per the original article) of term limits for lawmakers.

Doom_Art posted...

so instead of placing arbitrary restrictions on voters and candidates, focus on these instead

You realize my very first post suggested a campaign finance reform, right?

Doom_Art posted...

there's been multiple times in US history, as recently as the 1970s, where waves of reforms, overhauls, and constitutional amendments were passed. Changing the system and achieving goals through activism is absolutely possible, people today would rather not focus on that stuff and/or just bitch online about how everything is terrible and un-salvageable.

This ignores the fact that wages have declined, campaign spending has skyrocketed, and laws limiting activism have been passed as recently as the BLM protests. In fact, despite being the largest and longest running series of protests we've seen in decades, there was next to no real reform with police or systemic racism. We had a bunch of congresspeople wear kente cloths and take a knee in the congressional chamber.

TyVulpine posted...

No, I mean, even though the incumbent party doesn't really let incumbents be primaried, in some districts, the opposing party doesn't even bother fielding a candidate, thus incumbent runs unopposed. Mainly in districts where the incumbent party is basically gerrymandered to be a lock for the seat.

Agreed. I believe that term limits would have an effect on how these elections would play out since every few cycles we would see new faces and (hopefully) new ideas.

Doom_Art posted...

I'm sure this seemed a witty retort, but I want to get back to this.

How is Sinema's current position the product of a lack of age or term limits for elected officials?

She's fairly young, and only had a few terms as a State Senator and Congresswoman prior to getting elected to the Senate in 2018.

I'm moreso forshadowing that a congresswoman like Sinema is pretty well protected after first getting elected since incumbents have a huge advantage and there are no term limits that keep her from running for the rest of her life.

Doom_Art posted...

What rules and norms are being created to protect them from consequences?

I suppose I'm referring to the ones that already exist, not new ones being made.

Again, gerrymandering, the general difficulty to perform a recall election, the general lack of campaign finance restrictions.

Doom_Art posted...

If the public is too complacent and uneducated/unmotivated to vote them out and that's on them. Part of the responsibility of living in a free and open society is getting involved.

It's very easy for a government to make it impossible to be politically involved. We already strip voting rights from prisoners. Gerrymandering, again. Keeping citizens just close enough to the poverty line that even taking one day off to be an activist can lead to financial hardship.

You cannot reasonably claim that the lack of activism and political motivation isn't baked into the system. Even as far back as the founding fathers, "The Will of the People" was a load of shit.

There's a reason why we don't have 49 other Stacy Abrams' in the remaining states. It's not remotely easy and it never was meant to be.

TyVulpine posted...

The problem isn't term limits, it's that the incumbents almost always face weak competition, if any (some Congressional districts, the incumbent runs unopposed).

Term limits would, in fact, solve this.

What other solution exists? Would the incumbent party really let their candidate be primaried? Are they going to funraise and campaign harder in a non-swing district?

Doom_Art posted...

This is Sinema's first term

And with the current system it's likely not her last.

Also don't you see how creating rules and norms for lawmakers that protect them from consequences and keep getting themselves elected can be a bad thing?

"Just don't vote for them" really doesn't work in gerrymandered states.

Doom_Art posted...

^ Or, far more simple solution; if it's such a big issue, then don't vote for them

Congresscritters having a long tenure is clearly not an issue for most.

That's how you get Manchin and Sinema.

Create an advisory position that lasts 6 months where the former lawmaker coaches the newly elected one and gets them up to speed on current bills, issues, and committees.

Or, keep the "no term limits" position, but every election cycle create caps on campaign spending that decrease at an exponential rate.

eg. First election, a prospective lawmaker can spend $800k on campaigning (Or whatever the current median is). Next election they can only spend $400k. Then $200k. And so on. If their record is so good like NYT is saying is the case, then they wont need to spend as much each election and shouldn't need to spend as much time campaigning.

Born and raised Catholic. Atheist now.

I don't recall any bigotry or extremism in my church growing up, I just accepted that religion in general is too self-contradictory for me to believe in it.

Saxon posted...

Prison, but probably death by firing squad for refusing to serve in a WW3 situation.

Both of those consequences are unfathomably stupid for a government to do.

Prison means you're using taxdollars to house and feed a draft dodger for a nonviolence offense when they could be used for whatever war you've dreamt up.

The latter is the same, but now you're also wasting time (appeals), money, resources, bullets, and an able-bodied person who would rather be paid to do some kind of manufacturing or production job for the "war" effort over needlessly killing other people. Oh, and it's unconstitutional if you live in the US.

What exactly are the consequences?

Bill Maher needs to shut his stupid fucking mouth.

Smallville posted...

Which was your favorite SW movie? you're a big SW fan?

I've seen all the movies and watched some of the TV shows like mando. So I'm like 7/10 in my interest.

Last Jedi's theme of "kill the past or embrace it" is compelling and a bit meta. Would have been interesting to explore more in the sequel.

streamofthesky posted...

Bill's 100% right.
"Emotional truth" is no different than "alternative truth" and it's sickening but sadly expected (Horseshoe Theory, yet again) that the extreme left would echo the extreme right.

Chillscream123 posted...

Pretty sure Bill is a progressive and liberal guy. Also he is ultra based.

This is just low-quality bait.

TLJ had interesting ideas, bad characterization, and bad writing.

RoS had rehashed ideas, worse characterization, and stupid writing.

Also TFA was the "best" of the sequel trilogy while also being terrible.

s0nicfan posted...

Spoilers: that's what capital gains taxes are.

I mean a lot a lot though.

Also I'm happy I'm reinventing the wheel here.

emblem-man posted...

To add to this, this would also actually do what most of y'all want, which is for the rich to pay higher taxes. Doing it through higher corporate taxes is kind of a roundabout way of doing it.

If that accomplishes the same thing, then sure.

Can we tax shareholders too? Like, by a lot?

Solid_Snake07 posted...

simply put, if you want to tax Walmart more heavily you are saying you want to make it more expensive for poor people to buy groceries

Even with food there's prices that people are not willing to pay. Do some optimization analysis and set the tax rate high enough that walmart loses money if they raise prices since less people are buying. At the same time, give tax breaks to small grocery businesses and subsidize urban planning for farmer's markets.

asdf8562 posted...

I'm not against taxing the wealthy, but claiming "companies leaving isn't such a bad thing" is not the hill to die on for convincing people taxing the wealthy is a good thing.

Well part of my point is that only stupid companies would actually leave. And if they do then I don't think we want stupid companies doing business in our country anyway.

s0nicfan posted...

Go to Detroit or Camden and tell everyone there industries leaving is good and tell me how they respond.

Sounds like an opportunity for an ambitious prospective business owner to buy those factories and offer competitive products and wages

Nemu posted...

It generally means they move their production outside the US, leading to a loss of jobs, rather than wholesale leaving the country. Whether that's actually true or not is another story.

Then you make importing those goods more expensive than if they just paid more taxes domestically.

Explain to me why this is a bad thing, please.

Companies move out? Okay. Their products face a heavy import tax when brought to the US.

Companies don't wanna sell in the US? Okay. Don't make money in the biggest economic market in the world. Let smaller businesses fill in the vacuum made by your departure, promoting innovation and competitive prices/wages.

Am I missing anything here? Sounds like taxing big corporations is a net good.

Yawn_Master2 posted...

is the spirit of the law to factor in the rate of innovation?

Well the topic is asking if the law should change to reflect the reality of the games industry, not if it currently does.

Zikten posted...

Devs and console makers will always push against this idea because they want to keep the eternal option always there, to do re-releases anytime they want

In an ideal world, all games would become public domain after a while. Let's say 20 years. That's more than generous for a video game

And then if the devs want to make more money on it, they can always put in a little work to update the game to a new version which would start a new 20 year timer

Agreed on all points.

ssjevot posted...

US law is 70 years and I believe some other countries are 50 years.

That's far too long for games imo. The technology has grown substantially for games and you cannot play some games without purchasing them from collectors for outrageous prices.

I can watch a DVD of the Wizard of Oz for cheap because the way we watch movies is hugely accessible and the media has b stayed consistent and preserved.

Say 20 years?

Not IPs, mind you. Specific games. Public domain to be reproduced and shared legally unless the original developer makes the game widely available on modern hardware or mass reproduces the original game on physical hardware. At which point they retain the rights for another 20 years.