Lurker > adjl

BlackScythe0 posted...

Unless you work online, this is effectively not possible given that 5 miles isn't enough distance to keep a job.

On the rare occasion that I go into the office, my commute is currently 4 km (2.5 miles). If you take out the question of whether or not you can afford a home in a given location, living within 5 miles of work is only going to be a problem if your work requires you to go to multiple locations that are too far apart to fit them all within that radius.

Tremendously so.

pionear posted...

No you're locked in Forever...

Can I move to a different free home with the same rules? Maybe move within a 5-mile radius each time so I never actually leave the defined radius of wherever "home" is?

Usually Classico. Their jars are great to reuse, too, though at this point we've got way too many of them.

WrestlinJustice posted...

What if I told you that you had a fart fetish? What if I "feel" that you have a fart fetish? Would that be enough evidence?

You can feel whatever you want. You shouldn't necessarily expect to be taken as seriously as anyone who thinks this topic is weird would be, by virtue of the fact that this topic is really weird, and you should generally to try ensure that you develop your intuition such that you can be confident that if you did search for evidence it would support the conclusions you have intuited (and until you do so, try not to rely on your intuition), but I'm not here to tell you what to think. Only to judge you for making a weird topic.

I'd have to pick the place pretty carefully to make sure I could access everything I need within that radius, but that's pretty doable in any competently-planned city. Even just where I live now (for considerably more than $0), the only place I go on a remotely regular basis that's more than 5 miles away is my mother's place, and that's only 6 miles as the crow flies. It's suck to lose the ability to travel further away (most interesting parks and trails are further out), but I'd definitely consider it, especially if I could cancel the arrangement at any time and go back to paying for housing.

WrestlinJustice posted...

So basically your evidence is "I feel like it is"

This is a situation where I would consider that to be enough evidence, yes. Not everything needs to be robustly proven before accepting that your conclusion is plausible enough to move on with your life.

Sometimes in life, you just know that something is weird without having to think too hard about why. This is one such time.

https://www.mariowiki.com/Mario_Day

Looks like it goes back as far as 2015 in terms of official recognition, but it's relatively recent that more has been done to celebrate it.

What a weird topic.

LinkPizza posted...

I think Im talking about the ones who play it everyday for like a year, or until the next one comes out. Paying $20 a month for just that seems like a lot

Yeah, that's silly.

Dikitain posted...

Most people aren't going to care though.

How many people have subscriptions to stuff they don't regularly use? That is why subscription services are being pushed so hard.

But also this. It's very, very easy to forget about subscription costs, underestimating or even completely ignoring them as they fade into the background of ongoing expenses. You probably do this yourself: How often do you do the math for how much time you spend watching Netflix (or whatever video streaming services you use) and use that to evaluate the cost? Off the top of your head (that is, without opening your bank statements or taking several minutes to do some mental math), could you give me an estimate within 10% of how much you spend on recurring costs every month?

Maybe you can, in which case kudos for being particularly financially responsible, but most people tend to underestimate how much little costs like that add up. In that regard, Gamepass is fire-and-forget: You set up your subscription, then you just get to play CoD or whatever for free without ever having to think about buying it. You spend more money in the long run than you would just buying each game, but you don't feel like you do because you're not consciously making those transactions and you just get used to having $20 less each month.

It's why so many companies push subscriptions and auto-renewals: the less you have to think about the money you're spending on something, the less likely you are to feel like that thing an area where you can cut back on your spending.

Honestly, it's pretty overrated. It's a great game, certainly, and I fully understand why it was such a big deal when it came out and the extent to which it has influenced the genre, but aside from the fact that it did it all 29 years ago it doesn't really do anything to make it stand out from other turn-based JRPGs. Well worth playing, but not "If you haven't played this you've never tasted true gaming greatness!" territory.

WrestlinJustice posted...

So the tweet ask people to write at the bottom of their foot and instantly people assume its for a fetish? wtf. So I guess when people ask me to write on my hand they have a hand fetish? Makes no sense, explain it to me.

Asking people en masse to send you pictures of one of their body parts generally suggests an unusual interest in that body part.

BUMPED2002 posted...

I think the next big change will be cross-platform gaming.

Cross-platform is already a thing, but it's mostly Microsoft pushing for it and Nintendo going along when it's feasible to do so. Pushing for it is mostly a product of being behind, though. Those in the lead tend not to want cross-play because they can already offer enough of a playerbase to leverage fence-sitters into buying their platform to play with friends. Those that are lagging, however, benefit more from "you don't have to choose between getting our system and playing with your friends."

LinkPizza posted...

It would probably be dumb to pay $20 a month every month for multiple months for one game, though, tbh

I mean, if you spend three months playing the game, that's roughly equivalent to buying it for $60. Obviously, that value calculation falls apart if you start looking at replaying it again in the future and needing to pay for it again, and that doesn't work out in your favour for games that would last you that long but cost less than $60, but it also does work in your favour if you play more games than that.

If you're only ever playing one game? Yeah, that's not so worthwhile. But it's still a pretty solid deal, if you're willing to accept the loss of control over your library (which is a big sticking point).

WrestlinJustice posted...

While I do understand this point, that situation seems alot more black and white than the Dan situation. What if Dan is just telling feet jokes? Since feet is gross and ugly maybe he just finds it really funny?

I haven't paid enough attention to have an actual opinion, but I would guess people suspecting a fetish do so because he features feet more often and in enough contexts that aren't clearly comedic to suggest that there's more to his affinity than just getting some laughs out of it. That's not "deciding," that's just saying that he gives them the impression that he has a foot fetish.

captpackrat posted...

[White Mystery Fruitcake]

Honestly, not as bad as I was expecting with a name like that. It's still just a crappy mix cake crumbled up and with a few extra bits added to it, but "white mystery" made me expect like mayonnaise or cottage cheese or something in there.

WrestlinJustice posted...

You tell me the difference then.

Deciding is making a decision for somebody, as the name suggests. Concluding is just a matter of figuring out what the most likely truth is based on observations. If somebody frequently orders pineapple on their pizza, you can conclude that they like pineapple on their pizza. You haven't decided that for them, you're just making observations. If they say they don't like pineapple, the fact that they keep ordering suggests that they're lying about that preference for some reason, so you're left to draw your own conclusion based on whether you believe their words more than their actions (or to collect more information to explain the discrepancy).

WrestlinJustice posted...

And who cares why I made the topic

Doesn't make it any less weird.

It's weird that you're so defensive about this, it's weird that you don't understand the difference between "decide" and "conclude," it's weird that you felt the need to bump it on a board that sees like 50 posts a day, it's weird that you felt the need to bring up Dan Schneider when he hasn't been relevant to pop culture for several years... It's just a weird topic.

What a weird topic this is.

https://imgur.com/MZW4MLg

ConfusedTorchic posted...

bring back transparent plastics

This was the biggest thing in the late 90's/early 2000's, and it just dropped right off. I'd be all over resurrecting that particular fad.

My poor screen.

Yellow posted...

CPUs have flatlined for now but GPUs are still growing. GPUs are way more powerful anyway. More and more things will be offloaded to the GPU from here on out.

They're still growing, but there are substantial diminishing returns in terms of player experience. Paying hundreds of dollars for a very marginal increase in visual fidelity isn't overly appealing. Meaningful growth now is going to be more along the lines of rendering more entities at once or otherwise having games that are more computationally complex (which is generally more of a CPU thing, as I understand it), or improvements in form factor like what the Switch did (which the Steam Deck has followed up and the PS Portal has quasi-mimicked).

No, but console wars and exclusives are getting there, such that it wouldn't surprise me if the landscape looks pretty different within a few years in terms of how many systems are around and how standard cross-play is. Because of how much console gaming is now tied to an account and therefore a single system (digital games, friend lists, DLC/microtransaction purchases), consumers are even more reluctant to switch their console of choice now then ever before, so the potential for exclusives to motivate system sales has been considerably reduced. Timed exclusivity will likely still be a thing, but even first-party publishers have been finding that there's more money to be made releasing major exclusives as multiplats for extra sales than keeping them on one system to move more units, so expect your console purchase to matter a lot less in the long run.

Nintendo will almost certainly just continue doing their own thing, because that's how Nintendo do, but for everyone else I'm expecting more ports/multiplats and more cross-play.

keyblader1985 posted...

The problem is that I just don't know what all the jargon means as far as what the machine is capable of handling, gaming wise.

Plug the specs of what you're looking at into a benchmarking site, then do the same with your current laptop to get a comparison of how the new one will perform relative to your old one. If you can find some well-rated alternatives that are outside your price range, you can also plug them in to give you an idea of how much you'll be missing out on because of your budget.

SinisterSlay posted...

Usually summoning spells require virgin blood.
I am not certain of the sustainability of the supply.

You can collect a pint every 12 weeks from women, or every 8 weeks from men, starting at age 17. Now, there's certainly room to argue about the ethics of using that blood to prop up the textiles industry instead of saving lives, but some of the less common, non-universal types could be reasonably used outside of medicine. Most donors would eventually stop being eligible, but there are definitely enough adults out there who don't/can't have sex to maintain a reasonably stable supply.

Yes, any attempt to learn something about yourself could count as experimenting on yourself, provided it's framed as "how am I responding to the experimental conditions?". To that end, I'm not sure simply looking in a mirror would count, but looking in the mirror after putting on makeup or doing your hair could (since then you're collecting data on how your efforts made you look and how that look makes you feel).

Sahuagin posted...

ok the question is on your body not with your body... hmm... my brain is alternating back and forth as to whether those are similar or different

I think they are actually the same, we just wouldn't think of light hitting our retina as "on our body". but using your finger to test water temperature is. and something like testing sharpness with your finger definitely is.

I would say the distinction boils down to how what you're doing relates to your body. If you're testing water temperature to see if it's a comfortable temperature for your bath, that's an experiment on your body: you are experimenting to see how your body will respond to conclude whether or not you should get in.

If you're testing water temperature to see if it's the right temperature to dissolve Jello, you're conducting an experiment with your body: your body is simply the tool you're using to determine whether the water is suitable for a purpose that does not directly relate to your body. Effectively, your body's just a thermometer in that case.

Entity13 posted...

To summon satin? What did we use to summon cotton or silk?

The economic implications of being able to summon satin at will are pretty significant. It's not the most useful textile, by any means, but being free is a massive gamechanger.

Sufferedphoenix posted...

It used to not be. Not everything needs to be entertaining.

It does when there are more interesting alternatives.

Therein lies the root of sensationalism: Nobody's going to watch your version of the news (and, more saliently, sit through the commercials you need to fund it) if a more interesting version exists. If there were ever a time when news could get away with being boring (and there actually wasn't, you can find plenty of examples of opinions being stated in news reports from every era despite what some nostalgic people might tell you), it was solely because there weren't alternatives.

Dikitain posted...

To be honest, the only reason I ever notice DST is usually when I go grocery shopping on Sundays and I wonder why the clock in my car is off by an hour. Then after a few minutes my brain kicks in and goes "oh yea..." and changes it to what it should be. If it weren't for that, I would never know that it was happening.

I find it depends on what time I'm getting up. Some years, it's a minor change and I barely notice. Others, if I'm routinely getting up at a time that means I've been seeing the morning get lighter and lighter for the last couple weeks (especially during whatever commute I'm doing), that abrupt shift to being dark again absolutely wrecks me and it's like a month before I can get out of bed properly.

These days, working from home most of the time and getting up to start work at 9, it's not a huge problem because it's already been reasonably light at 9 for a couple months and will continue to be after the change.

There always are. Most people agree that DST should go away in some capacity, but the subsequent arguments about which time to stick with permanently inevitably end up in a dead heat and the whole idea gets scrapped as a result. Lather, rinse, repeat every couple years to see if the relative proportions of morning people and night owls have changed (they haven't).

Sufferedphoenix posted...

I'm talking tv news specifically.

TV news naturally tends to be more opinion pieces because "just the facts" news is too boring to keep people watching through commercials. I recommend reading more.

Sufferedphoenix posted...

My point is they try to hard now days to tell you how to feel about it. That shouldn't be the case. And what I mean is where they gotta run off at the mouth after telling the story with their opinions on the matter Moreso than how they frame it. Just tell the story and move on.

There's still plenty of news that gives "just the facts" (as much as anyone can, because again you're never really *just* being given the facts). If you're getting too many opinions, odds are you're reading opinion pieces, in which case, that's really on you.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

I still remember back in the 80s when everyone was convinced that VR was going to be the future. And then in the 90s people were still saying that. And then in the 2000s. And the 2010s.

Like 3D, it's one of those technologies that everyone always seems to think is going to become ubiquitous right around the corner, but it never really seems to take off in any meaningful way. You get little bursts where it becomes slightly more popular and everyone goes "This is it! It's finally taking off!", and then the fad ends and it just sort of fades back into the shadows until the next time the tech slightly improves and the cycle repeats again.

Since its inception, it's always kind of been hovering on the fringes of the home market as something that's really cool but just not quite viable to integrate into home entertainment yet. The last few years, however, have seen it become viable for home use, and that's given the novelty a chance to wear off that it hasn't really had before now. With the novelty gone and the ultimate experience just not being worth what it costs (and the current trajectory being to improve the experience with new equipment that costs the same or more rather than to make a "good enough" experience more affordable), the hype has fallen off and probably won't pick back up again.

Mostly, I think VR was just cooler when we couldn't have it. A lot of its value relied on that unattainable novelty of always being just out of reach, but now it's in reach and has to stand on its own merits instead of that tantalizing unavailability, and those merits just aren't enough to justify the cost for most people. We'll probably see another attempt to make it work when the current market starts to dry up a bit and the industry pushes for affordability instead to try tapping into the "it's cool, but not $500 cool" audience, but I expect whatever disappointing level that market stabilizes at will be all the success VR will ever have.

Sufferedphoenix posted...

I mean like just saying there was a conference held today and the speaker said this... and leaving it at that. Or saying the police apprehended a suspect of x crime and leaving it at that. Now days they try way harder to influence how you feel about it.

Again, genuinely factual information is a lot rarer than people like to think it is. Even if something's presented as being "just the facts," it's usually not *all* the facts, only the facts that the writer saw fit to include, which means a whole lot of curation has gone into the report. The push to be passive often also ends up (intentionally or otherwise) lending credence to a side of the story that really doesn't deserve it. Consider these two headlines, describing the same event:

-"Pedestrian killed after collision with vehicle in crosswalk with lights flashing"
-"Driver strikes and kills pedestrian in crosswalk with lights flashing"

Most would say the former is the correct way to frame it, being more "passive." Both state exactly the same factual information, but the standard is to use the former wording to avoid putting too much blame on the driver. The effect of that, however, is to paint the incident as being at least partially the pedestrian's fault, or otherwise some sort of inevitable accident that we just have to feel bad about and accept instead of blaming the negligence of the driver and infrastructure that fails to protect pedestrians from that negligence. It is, in fact, the driver's fault, but that "neutral" reporting avoids acknowledging that and leaves room to misinterpret the facts of the situation.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

I'd argue that VR in general is dead in the water.

Apart from a few hardcore tech adopters and the few people who jumped on it to see what all the fuss is about, it's not really a growing niche. Most people either seem to be apathetic to it or outright opposed to it.

Indeed. It's a pretty stable niche, in that people who like it are continuing to buy new hardware as new developments come out and there's enough of a market to sustain software development, but it hasn't really taken off in the sense of seeing large-scale success and I don't expect that it ever will.

Sufferedphoenix posted...

Wish news was like how I heard it used to be. They just matter factly told you what appeared to happen what was said and kept their opinions out of it and let the viewers form their own.

There's a particular irony in you taking what you've heard in that regard as a matter-of-fact statement of what happened that keeps the speaker's opinions out of it.

Virtually without exception, whenever anyone says "X news is objective and unbiased," they actually mean "X news agrees with my biases so I don't notice them." This is true whether you're talking about extant news outlets or nostalgic reminiscence of how news supposedly used to be.

darkknight109 posted...

This isn't really an accurate comparison.

In-situ repairs of spacecraft are quite viable and we know this because we do it constantly with the International Space Station. Unlike with a car, where you have to deal with gravity, wind, and the fact that you'd presumably want someone driving the car for you, with a spacecraft - even one moving to Mars at considerable speed - you can quite happily go strolling out the airlock onto the exterior of the ship (as long as you're tethered to something), because you're moving at the same speed the ship is and there's no air resistance to slow you down. Fixing the ship mid-flight isn't generally going to be any more difficult than fixing it (or building it) in orbit around Earth, so long as you have supplies on hand.

Indeed. Remember that once you actually get out into space, flight basically consists of "point ship in right direction, fire thrusters to reach desired speed, then coast until you reach your destination." The occasional course correction will be needed because on that scale being off by a millionth of a degree can cause you to miss the planet entirely, and the trip's not entirely without resistance that will slow the ship down, but flying a spaceship is extremely hands-off and for the most part it doesn't matter if you're inside the ship or outside. You can't fix a car in motion because it needs constant input to remain stable and keep moving and because the air resistance would make it extremely difficult to hold on (not to mention popping the hood mid-drive would probably just result in it being ripped off because we don't design cars for that to be an option). None of those issues apply to space flight, which is in no small part why any game that tries to realistically simulate space flight is insufferably boring.

The bigger problem with in situ repairs is that crew members need to know enough about how the ship works and have the mechanical skills to repair it. Real astronauts get that as part of their training and certification, but I'm not sure Mr. "Inheriting an emerald mine doesn't count as a trust fund" would be willing to put in that kind of effort. But then I guess it's not like he has anything else he needs to do with his time, so maybe he could.

https://imgur.com/CFOFwpS

That took me a second.

It would be illegal for me to do so.

Blue_Thunder posted...

More like a medical one but my jaw used to ache on the side I didn't chew on (because having my wisdom teeth removed left a pocket on that side that was a pain to clean food out of). I hypothesized that if I could exercise that side of my jaw it would get better, so I started chewing gum on that side for a few minutes daily. Sure enough, the pain went away.

Less formally, this is in the same vein as "this muscle is stiff, I'll wiggle it around a bit to see if it helps." Often it does, sometimes it doesn't, and it's when it doesn't that we start to wonder if there might be a deeper problem like an injury that needs further attention.

Really, we do this sort of thing all the time without formally identifying it as "science experiments." We're constantly aware of and observing the state of our bodies and subconsciously comparing that to how we expect it to respond to our surroundings and recent experiences. That's pretty much the scientific process: Establish expectations, make observations that test those expectations, evaluate how those results line up with your expectations and draw conclusions accordingly.

https://imgur.com/v9wECbo

chelsea___wtf posted...

You want me to crank it 24 hours a day?

*Schoolboy giggle*

I hope both teams have fun.

Depends what you mean. Any instance of saying "I think it hurts when I do *thing*," then doing *thing*, then drawing a conclusion about whether or not it huts to do *thing* is technically a science experiment, though most people wouldn't necessarily think of that when considering this question.

I drink tea considerably more often than coffee, but I still don't drink tea very often. I'm more of a tap water guy.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

It'd be way easier without needing to survive the landing.

If there's a ship in the way, he might die in the ship before actually contacting the surface of Mars. His best bet would probably be to just get the appropriate life support to remain conscious, then skydive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfP3gCL4lf4