Lurker > adjl

ultra_magnus13 posted...

The threshold should be no different. If you are dangerous enough you need to be disarmed, then you are dangerous enough you need to be imprisoned.

Do you consider being disarmed and being imprisoned to be comparable punishments, with a comparable impact on the life of the accused? Why, then, would you suggest that imprisonment is a suitable response in situations where disarmament will likely suffice?

MeatiestMeatus posted...

Depending on police response times, an abuser showing up with a knife or other weapon would have a much more difficult time successfully attacking their victim than if they were to roll up and be able to squeeze a trigger from fifty yards out.

Moreover, the stats simply don't support the "alternate weapon" narrative. Removing access to guns for those under DV restraining orders reduces the risk of DV homicide by every method, as much as opponents to such measures like to insist that "they'll just use a different weapon."

ultra_magnus13 posted...

If a judge believed they posed a great enough risk that they should be stripped of there rights, then he could and should have them held in jail until trial.

The threshold of proof for imprisoning somebody for several months is - and should be - considerably higher than the threshold of proof for limiting somebody's access to lethal weaponry for several months. The latter is rarely more than a minor inconvenience. The former is devastating, especially if done incorrectly.

There's ample research out there showing the effects of these regulations. This is a solid example that runs through multiple different permutations and combinations of restrictions:
https://www.preventdvgunviolence.org/dv-and-firearms-zeoli.pdf

The exact numbers vary, but the common thread throughout every study examined in that summary is that reducing the accused's access to firearms reduces the risk of their partner being murdered by around 10% (by any means, not just by firearms), with the figure being quite a bit higher in some specific cases. That's a big deal.

Looks like Nick, Yahtzee, and most of the other creators that jumped ship have formed Second Wind to continue doing exactly what they were doing for The Escapist, only employee-owned. I'm really hoping this ends up succeeding, given what a massive middle finger to those executive dinkleburgers that would be.

Even if you do cause image problems, most CRT displays have a degaussing option somewhere that will remove the kind of magnetic interference you're likely to encounter in your everyday life. I wouldn't recommend sticking a CRT in an MRI, but you'd have to really try to cause permanent damage to one at home.

SilentSeph posted...

Back at home? Yeah
Back at work? Hell no

This.

I've had it for a while, but haven't gotten around to playing it yet.

Carefulmanbad posted...

It's also like a 100 plus hour game and most of us here are probably adults with families and full time jobs

That too. 100+ hours can easily take 3-4 months to complete if somebody doesn't have a ton of spare time, or even longer if it's being split with other games or other pastimes. It's totally believable that even somebody who considers P5R a priority (and would therefore want to avoid spoilers) wouldn't have had a chance to make it through yet, if other games were higher on the list and they had to wait for the port.

Monopoman posted...

Trust me at this point he was the main reason the Escapist was holding some relevancy nearly every other person they have is pretty damn mediocre at best.

I have been enjoying Cold Takes and some of the other stuff Frost has done, but otherwise yeah. Yahtzee leaving has pretty much eliminated all of The Escapist's appeal, so good luck with that, I guess?

Arcturusisnow posted...

You can't claim that spoiler warnings are needed ad infinitum.

Sure you can. There will always be people that want to experience things but haven't yet. The likelihood of encountering such a person decreases with the age and notoriety of whatever you're talking about, but it's still high enough that you should try to avoid dropping major spoilers unless you're in a context where spoilers for that work are to be expected and anyone looking to avoid being spoiled will know to avoid the discussion. There's a ton of media out there, such that being fully caught up on everything one is interested in takes quite a while and very few people can actually manage it.

Arcturusisnow posted...

the game is multiple years old.

The NA release was 3 years ago, and only on PS4. For anyone with a different system, the first release was only one year ago. That's not a long time at all, especially given how many people prefer to wait for a sale/price drop before buying games. Comparing that to >50-year-old movies is pretty laughable.

Many of them feel the same way about people that are chipper, energetic, and talkative after 9 pm, so it balances out.

I figure the threat of an automatic accessory charge would help to alleviate the conflict of interest issues, but a neutral third party could also work. That just requires additional resources, whereas I expect most people that hunt regularly can probably find a friend or two to go with them (and if they can't and/or their friends don't trust them enough to fill that role, that's reasonable cause to deny their request, so that problem solves itself), at no additional cost to the state.

CyborgSage00x0 posted...

The likelyhood of this being relevant a year from now are nil.

True, though I also wouldn't be surprised if further problems arise in the region before then and Biden's response to them ends up being an issue.

faramir77 posted...

I'll agree. I've supported the Liberals in every election since 2015 but they really haven't done much good. The Conservatives are objectively worse though, especially now that we have Diet Ben Shapiro as their party leader.

Exactly. We vote to keep the Conservatives out of power, but the Liberals aren't exactly doing anything worth getting excited about. I've actually voted NDP in every election I've been 18 for, but in practice my riding has historically been red and hasn't changed. I'd vote red if I had any reason to believe that blue had a chance of pulling ahead here.

The US' two-party system is a mess, but it's not like having more parties here actually helps matters.

Sufferedphoenix posted...

I have other variables I consider but that's another discussion

This is something a lot of people seem to have trouble understanding, particularly in the context of 2A issues. So often, you'll see a matter like this brought up where pretty much everyone agrees that a given sort of person (domestic abusers, in this case) shouldn't have access to guns, but people like Rasmoh will bring up the (legitimate) issue that not every person accused of DV is actually guilty, and jump from there to "therefore nobody that's just been accused of DV should have their guns taken away." It makes far, far more sense to default to taking guns away in every case where somebody has a credible DV accusation against them, then build further nuance into the law as needed to cover exceptions where it's not actually reasonable to do so or where taking guns away would cause inappropriate harm.

To use the hunting issue as an example (specifically with the intent of making a significant difference in food costs, not for sport), you can work around that by having the accused designate a hunting buddy and having that buddy responsible for holding on to one of the accused's guns and keeping it secure, except during hunting trips in which the buddy supervises them. Automatically charge the buddy with accessory to murder if the accused does end up killing somebody with said gun (unless they can be demonstrated to have done their due diligence, such as immediately calling the cops if the accused escapes with the gun or having been demonstrably crippled to the point of not being able to do so), and you've achieved most of the desired risk reduction without costing the accused the whole hunting season.

The exact details will of course need more work than that, but the idea is still sound. You can default to taking guns away from the accused while still taking steps to mitigate the potential harm caused by a wrongful accusation. Jumping immediately to the knee-jerk "muh rights are being stripped away!" as a justification for defaulting to leaving guns with people that have a significant chance of being dangerous leaves no room for that nuance and puts victims at risk. This doesn't have to be black-and-white.

I got Skatebird as part of that bundle for Ukraine that happened a while back, but I still haven't played it to see if it is indeed as bad as the initial reception suggests. I had such high hopes for the game.

Ah yes, taking politics out of Social Studies. While we're at it, let's take numbers out of math and letters out of English.

Yellow posted...

We'll see, trump could actually still win if he's not literally in prison. Biden's ratings are tanking with his response to Israel/Gaza

Biden's losing a lot of face over Israel, but Trump was the one who moved the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem in an explicit show of support for Israel over Palestine, and the sort of people who have an issue with Biden taking Israel's side are generally the sort of people that would sooner feed their genitalia to an alligator than vote for Trump (while also having the political wherewithal to recognize that abstaining from voting against the Republicans makes it easier for them to win). Even if public opinion is turning against Biden somewhat, I'm not sure this particular swing is one that will end up benefiting Trump.

ReturnOfFa posted...

Any idiot that likes Smith would do well to look into her prior failed careers.

The idiots that like Smith generally don't care so much about stuff like failed careers. They just like that she "owns the libs."

inb4"self-defense"

Rasmoh posted...

It is undeniable that a constitutional right is being stripped in these scenarios.

It's plenty deniable. "Stripped" is a deliberately alarmist word choice meant to call to mind a situation where somebody is hopelessly enslaved by a complete lack of rights. "You can't have your guns for a few months until we figure out whether or not it's safe for you to have them" is not "stripping" rights, it's suspending them temporarily because there's cause to believe not doing so is safe. It's also worth noting that the same "constitutional right is stripped" from anyone convicted of DV already, so it's not like there's any precedent to object to applying it in any circumstance.

Rasmoh posted...

You cannot argue in good faith that constitutional rights being stripped are minor inconveniences.

Sure I can, if the only thing offered by said rights is a minor convenience.

Rasmoh posted...

The fact that you consider it as such indicates that your risk/benefit analysis is skewed by your lack of regard for a constitutional right.

And yet here you are, doing absolutely nothing to support your apparent belief that ensuring a particular individual retains this particular constitutional right is more important than dramatically reducing the risk that a DV victim gets murdered. You want me to believe it's not only more than a minor inconvenience, but so much more than a minor inconvenience that afflicting it would be worse than dramatically increasing the risk that somebody gets murdered? Show me your logic. Don't hide behind pearl-clutching and act like your point should be self-evident.

Rasmoh posted...

That's patently untrue. Many people, especially those without a lot of money, use hunting as a means to feed themselves and their families. One deer goes a long way in terms of food for the cost.

Indeed. Particularly given the cost of groceries these days, being able to get a 50-60 pounds of meat as cheaply as you can by hunting does quite a lot to relieve the financial pressure food would otherwise present.

darkknight109 posted...

That really is the only meaningful consequence, though.

To be fair, there's also the consideration that some people rely on guns for hunting for food, and that would be more than a minor inconvenience. But that's also an exception that can be managed with additional procedures, rather than something that's valid cause to throw out the whole idea.

Rasmoh posted...

It's rather disingenuous of you to portray being stripped of a constitutional right as being mildly inconvenienced and to pretend that the only consequence of having ones guns taken away is being unable to go to the range.

It's rather disingenuous of you to hide behind flimsy fearmongering and pathos in hopes that I won't notice that you opted not to actually compare any of those impassioned words to a dramatically increased risk of murder to complete the risk/benefit analysis.

Rasmoh posted...

I don't disagree with taking guns out of the hands of some people accused of DV, but with some knowledge of the system, it's not hard to see why people would be against guns being taken away from people.

See, the issue is that there are four possible outcomes here:

1. Somebody is rightfully accused of domestic violence has their guns taken away
2. Somebody is rightfully accused of domestic violence and does not have their guns taken away
3. Somebody is wrongfully accused of domestic violence and has their guns taken away
4. Somebody is wrongfully accused of domestic violence and does not have their guns taken away

Option 1 dramatically reduces the risk of the DV victim being murdered. Option 2 creates a substantial risk that the DV victim gets murdered. Option 3 means the accused can't go to the range for a few months until the case plays out and they're found innocent. Option 4 is neutral.

We can't easily control whether or not they're wrongfully accused, so our choice is between taking away the guns - which will either dramatically reduce the risk of murder or mildly inconvenience the accused - and not taking them away - which will either dramatically increase the risk of murder or maintain the status quo. That's not exactly a difficult choice.

I love getting announcements for announcements.

Alberta's already basically just cold Texas.

Zareth posted...

He could just call it fullyramblomatic, his old youtube name

Yeah, he'll figure something out. It'll take a few weeks for the dust to settle and the relevant legal consultations to happen before he and the rest of the team can get into creating new stuff, but I'll be very surprised if they don't get back on a horse with a slightly different coat of paint.

And after so many ads targeting other provinces consisting of "move to Alberta! We've got health care!"

That I know of? Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance. I haven't exactly looked at the value of my collection, though.

I'm not sure just how much of ZP would be owned by The Escapist. The whole aesthetic may be off-limits, which would be a bit of a problem because reinventing something like that is a hassle, but if it's just the name I fully expect a revival under some thinly-veiled ripoff name that's just different enough to be safe.

By the time I learned about Cubivore as being something I was interested in, it wasn't readily available anymore, so I never got a copy. One of these days I'll acquire one, but it's not something that really keeps me up at night. Just a minor bummer.

I'm pretty sure Path of Radiance is probably my most valuable one, but I haven't made any serious efforts to appraise my collection.

Zareth posted...

Also still owning Zero Punctuation just as a brand means absolutely nothing lmao

It means Yahtzee will have to call anything he makes in the future something different, but that's not exactly the end of the world.

darkknight109 posted...

but it turns out serotonin, dopamine, and cortisol don't change much across language barriers.

At least, not across this language barrier. Others may be less easy to decipher.

agesboy posted...

kovarex was pretty shitty a few years ago with the cancel culture drama though

especially when he started doubling down on shit

I think I missed that. I'm mostly thinking in terms of transparency, willingness to listen to what players want, and the ability to come up with ideas that satisfy what players want without even necessarily being asked. FFF's are a pretty fantastic community relations tool.

shadowsword87 posted...

I've played 60 hours and haven't gotten to a silo yet :(

Not unusual, really. People take it at different paces, and there's plenty to focus on that takes time but doesn't contribute to the rocket. Is that still just your first map? Or have you fallen into the neverending cycle of restarting repeatedly because your spaghetti gets out of control and you want to start a new base with everything you learned in the last pasta bowl?

Judgmenl posted...

Here's a better way of explaining it.
I would feel guilty spending it.

That sounds like anxiety, which is something you could work through with a therapist (along with your depression). You can feel happier and more comfortable, dude, and you deserve to. Try taking some steps toward that.

If you aren't careful, you'll end up playing Factorio 20 hours a day. It's not a game people have any difficulty racking up significant playtime in, especially once mods come into the mix. A typical first vanilla playthrough is 30-50 hours, but the bulk of the game comes in what you do after "beating" it, whether that's megabasing, challenge runs, mods (several of which each take 500+ hours to beat), or just building a raycasting engine or video codec for funsies. And all of that time is spent solving engineering, logistics, and optimization problems that are right up your alley from what I can tell about the way you like to think.

If you want a taste of what the game's like, it's got an excellent demo. Give it a shot. You've got nothing to lose except time that you're looking to kill already.

Also, there is multiplayer, but that's more a "find a few friends to play with" sort of deal than a "you're surrounded by other people" one.

You think paid adblockers won't become a thing as anti-adblock measures become more sophisticated? Or that more won't go the route of AdBlockPlus and accept payouts from advertisers to let certain ads through? Or that Google can't figure out another way to monetize them?

shadowsword87 posted...

Just play factorio like every other programmer I know.

I really can't second this hard enough. You'd genuinely enjoy Factorio, unlike your current approach to gaming of finding something that just feeds an addiction while you mope about never having fun (not that Factorio isn't also addictive, but it's a different sort of addiction than the dopamine drip-feed provided by multiplayer live services). Plus the devs are fantastic and the community's fantastic, so you probably won't find either intolerable any time soon.

Johnny_Eagle posted...

I would've thought Google could just tell Youtube not to crack down on ad blockers. Guess that shows how little I know about how these things work...

Step 1: Google invests in adblocking services that are likely to be the ones able to overcome Youtube's anti-adblock efforts
Step 2: Ramp up advertising and anti-adblock efforts on Youtube
Step 3: Interest in adblockers increases and adblockers compete to overcome Youtube's anti-adblock efforts
Step 4: Google's investment in adblock services pays off

One of the perks of having a monopoly is being able to create problems, then sell people the solutions because they don't have any alternatives to let them avoid the problems you created.

Krow_Incarnate posted...

This is what I'm getting at. My guy outright called them untalented

I explained to him it was improv from the start.

Yeah, that's silly.

It's also worth noting that, stylistically, they were very much going for hammy, expository musical theatre singing, which tends to be really exaggerated and wouldn't really fit the bill of "good singing" if measured in other musical contexts. Again, though, it's improvised musical theatre. It's going to be focusing more on being silly than on trying to win a Grammy.

Individually, they're decent. Nothing special, but definitely not "can't sing" territory, and most of the bits that could be called "bad singing" if taken out of context are obviously a consequence of trying to improvise the song on the fly and also try not to laugh. Collectively, there are definitely a few points where they aren't exactly singing well together, but group improv is hard. Coming up with three-part harmonies on the fly while also figuring out your own lyrics plus following whatever shared lyrics the others are coming up with is extremely challenging. With that in mind, I'd say they did an excellent job and your dad just somehow expected a well-rehearsed studio recording from an improv show.

Because they're marketing based on panic/fear, emotions which cause people to be less critical of high prices.

https://i.imgur.com/p7W8fM4.png

Yeah, there's definitely some nuance that needs to be worked out, such as how remakes factor into it and what happens to characters and other elements of an IP, but I don't actually know how much trademark disputes like that would interfere with the idea. If it's not for sale because two companies are fighting over who gets the sales revenue, that still counts as "not for sale" and it would lapse into public domain at the end of the specified period. That opens up the potential for one owner to screw the other one out of future revenue by stalling those disputes until the copyright lapsed, and there'd need to be some provision for handling historic cases, but moving forward I expect that would just create an incentive to negotiate that *before* releasing the game to avoid having issues later.

Dikitain posted...

Blame Disney. Before they started trying to get copyright to last forever, things used to fall into the public domain after 20 years. Now that it takes 96 years for things to fall into public domain, they finally realized "Oh wait, we want to fight for TRADEMARKS, not copyright. My bad..."

The annoying thing is that Disney should retain full copyright control over everything they've made. They're not wrong to have fought for that, they just fought for it the wrong way. If they'd fought for "we're still using that thing we made, so nobody else should be able to use it until we're done instead of some arbitrary time limit" instead of "we're still using that thing, so we want the arbitrary time limit extended," copyright law would be in a much better place.

Though even 20 years is longer than I think is reasonable to wait these days. With digital distribution, I'd say even 2-3 years without the product being officially for sale (or a clear plan for when it will be on sale, to account for potential hiccups in developing an emulator or something) or otherwise commercially available (e.g. streaming) should qualify it for public domain. There's absolutely nothing stopping Nintendo from keeping the eShops running for the 3DS and WiiU, especially if they just use the same storefront for all systems moving forward. Subsequent to that, there's absolutely nothing stopping Nintendo from making their entire historical library available. That they aren't selling it means only that they've chosen not to sell it, and if they're choosing not to sell it, they have no basis for objecting to people pirating it.

You're generally going to cause fewer problems by teaching multiple methods and letting students decide what works for them than teaching one method and leaving students for which that method doesn't work behind. Especially where, if they're showing their work, you can point out where they mixed up multiple methods to help them avoid making that mistake in the future.

Overwhelming students with too much information isn't good, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't ever give them multiple tools.

fishy071 posted...

She shouldn't be taking the car if she doesn't have a drivers license.

It's petty, but if they've cosigned it she has as much right to it as TC does, unfortunately. If they just cosigned it, though, I imagine it's not paid off yet, so good luck to her unilaterally paying for a car she can't even use, I guess.

dragon504 posted...

If Nintendo doesn't get their shit together with online with their next console, I'm just going to skip them from now on.

You say that like this is an accident. Nintendo's not exactly the most competent when it comes to online stuff, but they know enough to be able to maintain an consolidated eShop that would last forever if they wanted to. That, however, would prevent them from selling remakes or ports of games they've previously discontinued, while providing very little in terms of additional revenue from people buying the older stuff. This is quite deliberate, and I'll be very surprised if the Switch's eShop and servers don't start shutting down by 2030 (assuming we see a successor in the next year or two).

Personally, I think copyright law should be amended to formally identify abandonware by making any media that hasn't been officially for sale for more than a couple years automatically pass into public domain. In the age of all-physical media, that would have been unthinkable, but digital distribution means the only cost to keep any given work available for sale is the storage cost (which is already being spent in the vast majority of cases because copies are being kept). That means the only reason for old media to be removed from sale is if the publisher doesn't want to sell it anymore, and if the publisher doesn't want to sell it anymore, there's no harm in pirating it. But that would require copyright law to A) Realize that it's not the 19th century anymore, and B) Care about consumers and artistic preservation more than corporate profits, and neither of those are overly likely.

It did eventually find its footing and manage to not be a total flop, mostly after a couple of price drops brought it more in line with what people were willing to spend on a console, but the Wii and 360 definitely outperformed it.

Count_Drachma posted...

While the ps2 playing DVDs was a big deal WHEN IT CAME OUT, by the time the GC came out, that fact was moot. Even if the GC could've played DVDs, it was much too late to market for that to have the same impact as the ps2.

The GC came out a year later. Not that much changed in that year. By like 2003-4, absolutely, but DVD players were still expensive enough in 2001 (average price in July 2001 was $192, source below) that getting one as part of a $300 console was a meaningful selling point over a $200 console that didn't include one. This is especially true considering that the GC's lack of a DVD player was well-known before its release and therefore anyone for whom that would have made the difference would have just bought a PS2 before the GC launched (whereas if the GC had one, people might have waited until November and chosen a GC over a PS2 solely due to library preference).

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2001-10-14-0110140028-story.html

I have pretty much zero faith, however, that he got fired because he wanted to nuke Gaza instead of just because he publicly admitted that nuking Gaza was on the table. That rhetoric of "there are no non-combatants in Gaza" is a common refrain among many Israeli officials, it just doesn't get the immediate horrible PR that mentioning nukes does (as much as it probably should).

Sufferedphoneix posted...

If it's stuff like you round up to a number then subtract the difference after I've been doing it since before it was a thing.

It makes doing it in your head easier but on paper nah I do it the original way.

I might argue that in today's world, being able to do it mentally is more valuable than being able to do it on paper. In almost any situation where you're doing math on paper, you'll have a calculator available to do it for you. Estimating/calculating mentally, however, is the basis of the common sense checks you should be doing after any larger-scale calculations, can help quite a bit with any accounting/bookkeeping process to track down any discrepancies you find, and saves the hassle of pulling out a phone to do things like calculate sales taxes or double a recipe.

Of course, at the same time, doing more complex math problems on paper is the basis for that mental exercise part of teaching math in schools, so students should still be getting a foundation that prepares them for that. It's a tricky balance, I guess.