Lurker > adjl

Muscles posted...

Uhh if China thought they had a chance to win a war they would have started it already, they absolutely despise us, and the western world as a whole. They're pretty much a real world Mordor

The US is significantly more valuable as a trade partner for China than whatever was left after a war would be, especially considering what such a war would do to their ability to trade with the rest of the world. China's economy is now largely self-sufficient, should the need for them to exist without trading with other countries ever arise, but that doesn't mean they want to create such a situation (particularly considering how costly such a war would be for all involved parties).

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

LuciferSage posted...

and to be clear, i didn't mean the American economy, i meant the world economy. Gold, Diamonds, Titanium, Uranium, Rare earth metals, Copper, Aluminum, Iron...

bring down one rock made of the stuff and it all becomes worthless as a commodity.

if asteroid mining truly becomes a thing, we really will have to come up with a new economic system from scratch.

Presuming, of course, it doesn't cost so much to access those resources that turning a profit becomes impossible, particularly considering the extreme price crash their mere availability would cause. In some ways, the concept capitalisms itself to death before it even gets off the ground.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

zebatov posted...

You should do a poll on these things so that people dont get a mod when they respond.

If you can't give your opinion on a subject without getting modded, holding that opinion might mean you're an asshole, and you should strongly consider reevaluating your position to minimize how much of an asshole you're being.

BlackScythe0 posted...

To me this is like arguing women shouldn't be in the military because how can we expect men not to sexually assault them.

It's not entirely invalid. It definitely doesn't mean trans people (or women, in your example) should never be in the military, just that the military has some major cultural issues that it needs to sort out before being able to have trans people in there.

Of course, as we all know, such cultural issues will persist unless they're given a chance to raise their ugly heads so they can be smacked down appropriately. Banning trans people from the military until the issues are fixed will end up being an indefinite ban because the issues will never be addressed unless they cause actual problems. To that end, reversing the ban is the right choice, though it will need to be paired with a concerted effort at all levels of the military to stamp out transphobia. Trump's ban has emboldened transphobes, and they won't take this reversal lying down.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

I never do. Televised sports just aren't my thing.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

You know how people often answer the question "If you could tell yourself something in the year 2000, what would you say?" with "buy stock in Apple"? This is why.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Kind of. Restrictions have relaxed around here because we're doing really well (they were tightened at the end of November because our case numbers spiked, but they're mostly under control now), such that I could go eat in a restaurant (dine-in opened again at the beginning of January), but I'm still sticking to take-out on the rare occasion that I do eat out and I haven't really taken advantage of the higher gathering limits. I wouldn't say I'm "locked down," but I am generally acting in a more covid-safe manner than I would be were there no pandemic.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

streamofthesky posted...

In the example of twitter (and technically Parler in as much as it's in turn beholden to other companies to support it), you had people blatantly violating those companies' terms of service and committing crimes which the platforms/companies could have been held liable for.

In the example of these stock trading companies, you had people using the service as intended, buying and selling stocks. Even if certain actions like shorting turn out to be legally wrong (they aren't; thank Congress and their Wall street bribers for removing pretty much all logical precautions from stock trading), these companies are going beyond just restricting that to just outright banning trading of certain stocks at all.

The two situations are in no way comparable and your slippery slope / "both sides!" garbage is without any merit.

In both cases, it is a matter of private companies deciding to restrict their services as they see fit, but just because they have a right to do it (pretending for a moment that that isn't debatable in this case) doesn't mean they're above criticism for it. Similarly, Twitter is not above criticism for their decisions, it's just that people trying to criticize them by saying "they interfered with my ability to organize terrorist attacks" tend not to be taken too seriously, and that's really the only people that have a problem with them interfering with people's ability to organize terrorist attacks.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

My default with trains is to turn it off if I can't see the end of the train. That pretty much always means it'll be at least a minute or two (again, I had many 15+ minute waits in London), which is worth turning the car off for. Drive-thrus and the like, it's really only if it's going particularly slowly, generally because somebody's got a big order at the front of the line. That can also be a couple minutes sometimes.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

LinkPizza posted...

I dont think Ive ever heard this.

https://www.edf.org/attention-drivers-turn-your-idling-engines

First result I could find, and even that's pretty old. The 15 second thing was second-hand information from my dad, years before I even started driving, so it doesn't surprise me that this more recent source is saying 10, nor would it surprise me if the magic number is even lower than that now. There was a time when starting an engine burned much, much more gas than idling it, but that was in the days of carburetors. Modern fuel injectors are vastly more efficient than those were.

LinkPizza posted...

Nor have I seen anyone turn off their car waiting for a train or red light...

Red lights are uncommon (unless it's a car that automatically shuts off and restarts, which is a thing now), but I frequently see people turning off cars for trains, unless it's obvious that it will have passed soon. It's just wasted gas not to (again, outside of keeping warm in winter). I've also sometimes turned the car off in lineups for drive-thrus or other such places where I might not be moving for a minute or two.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Zeus posted...

And it'd have to be one f***ing long train to turn off an engine during, but nothing is going to last 5 or 10 minutes in most places.

Protip: Never move to London, Ontario. Being held up by a train for 15-20 minutes was not remotely uncommon during my time there. I was lucky if I went a week without it happening. They had long trains, they had trains blocking the city centre during rush hour while they switched tracks, they had long trains switching tracks... Turning off the engine while waiting for trains was not only reasonable, it was pretty much mandatory if you didn't want to waste a buttload of gas (though I'd still turn it on for a couple minutes as needed to re-warm the car during winter). That's a city that very much has not been planned properly around its rail lines.

That said, I believe the magic number is 15 seconds for figuring out whether or not you should idle. If you're going to be stopped for more than 15 seconds, it's more efficient to turn the engine off, and even reasonable trains in well-designed cities can cause waits like that. Many modern cars will actually turn the engine off automatically if they're stopped for that long.

Nichtcrawler X posted...

Even for train crossings or traffic lights it is becoming more common.

Usually that's more for environmental considerations than anything that would be relevant here. Idling is generally pretty bad for air quality and produces a bunch of unnecessary pollution, so signs encouraging people to turn their engines off when they're going to be sitting for a while are becoming more common. That's less applicable for toll booths, where you aren't going to be stopped for more than a few seconds in the vast majority of cases (if at all, given how common transponder-based booths are becoming).

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Apparently the people who brought those cases dropped them I'm not sure what exactly is going on.

Presumably, they felt having him in office was bad for their own business, filed the cases to make him look bad enough to get him out of office, then dropped them once he left because they got what they needed.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

If you think life is cheap, try saving one without insurance.

keyblader1985 posted...

Yeah, a body is cheap. Life is not.

Eeyup. The whole point of that little rant is that human bodies are nothing special, but despite that, artificially creating (or, in Ed's case, restoring) human life is virtually impossible.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

It's a pretty clear line. It's not a matter of saying "not enough people are interested in this topic," it's a matter of saying "literally nobody is interested in this except the TC." Forums exist to communicate with other people. Threads in which people are communicating therefore belong. Threads in which people are not communicating do not, so unless they're useful for informative purposes (in which case a sticky request is in order and multiple different people are likely posting in it anyway), they should be removed for cluttering up the front page for no reason.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Wander_Nomaddd posted...

Because it keeps bumping up the topic to the top of the board?

This. Mass bumping also falls under disruptive, and talking to yourself is effectively just that. If nobody's interested in the topic, let it die. Otherwise you're taking up front page space with a topic you know nobody cares about.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Zeus posted...

>"I can guess who will object to this"
>Literally b****ed when that same person criticized the decision (when they were first considering it) already in another topic which might not have even purged at this point

I'm not sure why you're taking issue with somebody predicting that you'll espouse a viewpoint you claim to stand behind. I would think such a reputation would be a point of pride, if it's actually a position you're proud to hold.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Arcturusisnow posted...

There is no way you can incentivize billionaires to part with any of their money because they are human and human nature is to be a greedy, dips***, a****** that couldn't give two f***s about your fellow man.

It's not even necessarily that humans are inherently greedy and evil, it's that one generally can't become a billionaire without being that greedy. Those who are billionaires are only billionaires because they capitalized on their greed.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Conner4REAL posted...

So long as my tax dollars dont go to your income fine with me.

They already do.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/

Your taxes are already paying to keep workers alive while they work jobs that pay sub-living wages. You are subsidizing Walmart so they don't have to pay their workers enough to survive.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

TheOkHornedRat posted...

devils advocate? where in the flying f*** did i ever advocate for kellyanne conway? ive been saying since the beginning that she should have already been in prison.

"What the daughter did is also illegal" pretty clearly qualifies as playing devil's advocate, especially phrased in such a neutral way that doesn't seem to condemn it.

Snackers posted...

Oh so now you're offended by the truth. Ok.

It doesn't matter who or how. Stuff like this does not belong online and should never be created in the first place. Go back a few years to when celebs experienced this, or that cheaters website got hacked. Things happen you cannot control. I don't know these people nor care to.

Fact is we hand out the 'victim' card too freely these days. That doesn't release anyone from being ignorant to what happens to data online.

The pictures weren't online, though. Not until her mother put them there.

Revelation34 posted...

https://www.cnet.com/news/teen-arrested-for-having-nude-photos-of-himself-on-his-phone/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/20/teen-prosecuted-naked-images-himself-phone-selfies

Same story with a different source.

That sounds pretty ridiculous, and by the sounds of things there was more to the charges than just that, but that does indeed appear to be an example. Thanks.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

I'm really not sure why you're surprised that people don't like you playing devil's advocate for a mother that stole and distributed her own daughter's nudes to get back at her for exposing her abusive behaviour. That seems like a pretty obvious outcome.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

TheOkHornedRat posted...

i already mentioned it would be impossible to have such an example as any sort of case like that would be sealed for sure.

The details would be sealed, for obvious reason, but the overarching concept of "teenager convicted for owning copies of their own nudes" shouldn't be that hard to find. That would definitely make news for how controversial such a ruling would be.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Zeus posted...

But unless government and businesses stop using them, it's a pretty massive stretch to pretend that their business has actually been hurt by this. If the argument is "well, now we're not trusted with elections" yet government keeps hiring them, clearly they're still being trusted to run elections. And if the argument is "well, we MIGHT lose these contracts," then the court would tell them to come back when they did because then they'd have damages.

All of which matters for assigning a dollar value to the damages, but none of which matters for determining whether or not Giuliani is guilty of defamation. He very clearly is.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Joe_Biden posted...

so she...is in possession of child porn and distributed it?

oh no

It's not child porn. It's alternative daycare.

TheOkHornedRat posted...

so, just saying, but its equally illegal for the daughter to have those photos. there is no age restriction on who can be charged with possession of child porn.

Do you have any actual, real-world examples of somebody being convicted of possession of child porn for taking and saving naked pictures of themselves?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

LuciferSage posted...

That's going to be one hell of a stretch to prove in court. It's hardly A-B causation outlined in that argument.

You don't need to prove much of anything. It's common, easily observable knowledge that a significant number of people have bought into the election fraud lie, a lie which has included blaming Dominion's service for allowing the alleged fraud to take place. It's perfectly reasonable to presume that some of those people will end up making decisions that will influence Dominion's business interests moving forward. Even if we presume that absolutely nobody worldwide has been so duped that would be in a position to actually sign a contract with them (which is a stretch), the people in question are voters who have the power to influence who Dominion gets to sign contracts with moving forward, so there's still clear potential for damages there.

Is it conclusively $1.3b? Maybe, maybe not. But suits like this usually highball the damages number because it almost always gets negotiated down by the time it's settled, especially if it's settled out of court. The final number may yet change, but it's pretty indisputable that Giuliani et al have committed defamation.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Unbridled9 posted...

While I do agree that you should boot out people who fail to meet standards; do remember that they will throw a hissy-fit if the reason they fail to meet said standard is their trans-sexuality. I.E. they're required to meet condition X but being trans means they can only manage X-1 or they can manage X but it's harder for them.

Which is why you build a well-established history of not discriminating unfairly against trans people that you can cite to help people trust that that isn't the issue at hand. Being able to demonstrate why the standards are an inherent, inextricable requirement of the job also helps.

Basically, if you aren't usually a dick, people are less likely to presume that you're just being a dick when you do something potentially objectionable.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Well, I've played lots of MH and very little Street Fighter, so...

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

MartianManchild posted...

Maybe you should tell that to all these Biden lovers who act like a career politician is the second coming of Jesus.

I don't think anyone's that excited for Biden. Just to not have Trump in there anymore.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Master_Magnus posted...

I don't care if I got the game at $60 or $30.

If you're talking about value, you should.

Master_Magnus posted...

No it usually isn't wrong. Otherwise people wouldn't be irrational.

When people are being irrational, they generally don't stop to consider if they're wrong. That would be a very rational thing to do, and people that are being irrational typically struggle with being rational.

Master_Magnus posted...

Bowser's Fury is very meaningful content.

Not meaningful enough to justify your absurdly melodramatic reaction.

Master_Magnus posted...

There are no other solutions.

-Say "that's annoying, I'm not buying that" and move on with your life
-Suck it up and buy the game (ideally after waiting for a reasonable discount)

Oh hey two very easy solutions that don't involve ruined lives. Who knew?

Master_Magnus posted...

Most exclusives on all Nintendo consoles were exclusive for at least two generations.

Except for all the ones that weren't. Again, this isn't that uncommon. For that matter, where all other Nintendo generations have been 6 years long (WiiU was only 5), 7 years is actually long enough to skip a generation, if the game in question comes out late in the original generation and early in the remade one, so it's hypothetically been long enough that this remake could follow that metric.

Master_Magnus posted...

By late 2013 they should have pulled the plug on the Wii U if they weren't going to support it like Gamecube.

Late 2013 was only hen the PS4 and Xbone came out. It really wasn't until 2015 or so that it became apparent that the WiiU definitely wasn't getting back on track (after several high-profile releases that failed to salvage it, including Smash, Mario Kart, SM3DW, and Xenoblade, and with BotW delayed far enough for pushing it forward to be an option). After that point, it was a matter of getting what they could out of it until the Switch came out (which had been announced by then), which is pretty clearly what happened.

I don't know if you think they should have released the Switch four years sooner or something equally impossible, but the course the WiiU took is very much a reasonable one for a console that underperformed as badly as it did from a company that was still in good enough shape to stick around afterward. They got a successor out relatively quickly so they could move on, but continued to support it until that point so they could maintain as much of a revenue stream as possible.

Master_Magnus posted...

It's only a gamble for s*** console makers like Nintendo or when you buy a console literally on day one.

No, it's always a gamble. Exclusives are the only reason to own a specific system (especially one of Nintendo's, which doesn't get the multiplat support others tend to), and it's always a crapshoot whether or not those exclusives will be worth the purchase of the console. Ask Xbone owners which exclusives they bought their system for and see how many of them can't even come up with one off the top of their head. Ask yourself which exclusives you bought your PS5 for.

Master_Magnus posted...
Good console makers guarantee their consoles aren't failures or at the very least don't promise support for failed consoles beyond day one

Again, you seem to think that companies know which consoles will fail on day one. If they knew, they wouldn't launch them. I really don't know why you keep coming back to this "don't promise support for consoles that end up failing 4-5 years later" thing as though Nintendo had the hindsight benefit you currently enjoy back in 2012. it's quite absurd.

Master_Magnus posted...
That's what I did with Wii U. I bought it because I wanted to play Super Mario 3D World.

And you got to play SM3DW. Woohoo! Satisfaction! Your purchase was vindicated! Stop acting like you've been horribly wronged because you aren't getting something beyond what you bought the system for. What you got from that purchase hasn't changed. If you were satisfied with it then, you should be satisfied with it now. You're not entitled to anything more than what you chose to pay for. Get over yourself.

Master_Magnus posted...
Then the videogame industry is wrong.

They're wrong to sell games to people that want to buy them? That just sounds like straightforward commerce to me.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

LuciferSage posted...

The suit against Giuliani isn't about the "insurrection". It's about his alleged defamation against Dominion.

And people being moved to insurrection on the basis of how badly Dominon allowed fraud to occur is pretty clear evidence that the public's opinion of Dominion (that's fun to say) has been damaged by the lies Giuliani (among others) has been spewing.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

IronBornCorps posted...

I medically transitioned on hormones while working 60 hours a week in a kitchen, it's certainly possible to meet military standards for physical fitness.

Which is all the more reason to determine it on a case-by-case basis and not make any categorical assumptions. Some people might not be able to pull it off, in which case they shouldn't be there. Some can, in which case they should.

The other thing that people seem to forget in these discussions is that the military doesn't just consist of infantry. You don't exactly need to pass stringent physical standards for any of the countless office jobs they have.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

DirtBasedSoap posted...

okay so Im not reading this shit. what is this dudes point again?

That Nintendo screwed over WiiU owners because remaking games means the system never had any exclusives, and also that adding new content to remakes is evil because he literally cannot live without having all available content for every game he owns but he also "cannot" spend $60 for a remake of a game he already owns and therefore Nintendo has ruined his life.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

DirtBasedSoap posted...

im not really sure how being transgender could be viewed as a disability in the eyes of the military.

The process of transitioning does have its share of physical side effects that could interfere with their ability to do work, to say nothing of the general mental health distress that such people experience before they become settled in their new gender.

That said, the military already has measures in place to ensure that its members meet whatever standards are needed to get the job done. If you're concerned about trans people not meeting those standards, boot them out if they fail to meet those standards. There's absolutely no need to preemptively rule them out regardless of their abilities.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It's there because of the medical requirements, the same ones that get people with other disabilities disqualified.

The justification given was the save the money involved in treating them, which sounds nice enough on paper, until you look at the actual numbers and discover that transgenderism-related health care was costing the military roughly 4% of what it was spending on viagara. It was not a significant expense. The only people that bought the idea that is was were people that were already looking for a reason to kick trans people out, which is exactly who Trump wanted to sell it to.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Dikitain posted...

unless you form an LLC and pull the money from that, way too much work

We're talking about ~$500 million here, after taxes. I don't doubt that it'd be a major hassle to do that, but the idea that anything is "too much work" for that kind of money seems a little odd.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

LuciferSage posted...

Pretty sure Dominion is going to have a hard time demonstrating "Damages" given their contract for providing the voting machines is pretty airtight.

Damaging their reputation may impair their ability to renew said contract when the time comes, though, or seek new contracts with new clients. They may already have seen some direct losses from less-airtight contracts.

Regardless of the specifics involved in that figure, though, the fact that Giuliani (among many others, though I understand singling him out as a figurehead) has committed defamation against them is pretty indisputable.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

The ban never made much sense in the first place, and was enacted purely because Trump knew it would make his fans happy. Might as well reverse it for the sake of not arbitrarily limiting the number of available candidates and generally being respectful to people.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Master_Magnus posted...

Maybe not for you. For me it is.

Which is why everyone's telling you to chill.

Master_Magnus posted...

Virtual Boy was a failure and all of its games are still exclusive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Virtual_Boy_games

Do you see any games on that tiny list that are even worth porting?

Master_Magnus posted...

Gamecube, Saturn and Dreamcast were also failures and they all had more real exclusives than Wii U.

They also existed in a time when third-party games weren't overwhelmingly multiplat (which meant skipping the WiiU in most cases due to the hardware disparity) and porting old games was just starting to take off. Their libraries were substantially larger due to that third-party support, and there was less interest in ports. Despite that, many of their noteworthy games were ported (again, SA2 and PSO were ported with extra content within a year, despite being major exclusive titles, TP never even came out as the GC exclusive it was meant to be...), as much as you'd like to believe otherwise.

Master_Magnus posted...

The right decision was to keep those games exclusive for at least another generation to give the people who bought the Wii U the exclusives they deserved and to not sully Nintendo's legacy. A console maker must never burn those who bought their console, even if it means they lose money or the casuals don't get the games they want.

You keep saying this, but Nintendo's legacy is empirically fine. A lot of people (consumers and developers alike) were a bit wary of the Switch after how poorly the WiiU did, but it has overcome that initial skepticism and become Nintendo's second-best-selling console (and given how much momentum it's got, it may yet outsell the Wii). It really doesn't matter what you think they "deserve," Nintendo's managed to maintain their reputation and continue to operate as a successful game company.

Also, as much as you seem to think this is a good time to blame "the casuals," there's really no reason to make a casual/core distinction when it comes to wanting to play these games. It was very much not just casuals that skipped the WiiU, nor is it just casuals that want to play the games they missed. Heck, you're talking about a Mario game here. Not exactly super hardcore.

Master_Magnus posted...

I never buy games that I think that I can get a better deal later, even if the game is fun.

Then any discussion of "paying $60" should automatically be rendered moot. You can always get a better deal by waiting for prices to drop or for cheaper used copies to emerge. Even with how well Nintendo's first-party titles hold their value. If you're *ever* paying $60, then you're already making exceptions to that premise, so relying on it to justify being upset about enhanced ports is fundamentally flawed.

Master_Magnus posted...

Galaxy 1 and 2 were pirated, and my original Wii broke because of pirating games which is why I went legit with Wii U games.

You pirated Nintendo's flagship titles and now you expect loyalty and special recognition from them simply for buying a WiiU? Just when I thought your entitlement couldn't get any more ridiculous...

Master_Magnus posted...

And irrational != wrong.

It generally does, actually. At the very least, it's often counterproductive and results in measurably worse results than being rational does, as is clearly the case here.

Master_Magnus posted...
Just because I want to buy a fun game doesn't mean that I should be screwed over and miss out on other content forever.

You are not screwed over (because it's bonus content in a video game, not anything actually meaningful) and you don't have to miss out on other content forever. You're just choosing not to accept any of the many solutions you've been offered here. Stop blaming other people for your own issues.

Master_Magnus posted...
And when I say Wii U had no real exclusives I am not saying a falsehood.

It had games which you could not get on any other system. That's all "exclusive" has ever meant, and the only value the concept has ever had is to drive console sales. Now that it's dead and console sales have stopped, there's no reason to expect any further exclusivity than that.

Master_Magnus posted...
The only exclusives that make a failed console worth buying are exclusives that are exclusive for decades like Virtual Boy and Gamecube had. If Nintendo wasn't going to give the Wii U real exclusives then Wii U was a ripoff because nobody would buy such a console if they could skip it and get all its games anyway.

You keep saying this like they expected the WiiU to fail and should have marketed it accordingly. Nobody releases a console with the intent of having it fail. That would be stupid. Console failures are mistakes that are only ever really recognized well into their generation when it becomes apparent that efforts to salvage it aren't working.

Protip: Any time you buy a console, you're taking a gamble on whether or not it'll be worthwhile to own it, based on whether or not it ends up having enough of a library to satisfy you. You can minimize that risk by waiting until the end of the generation so you have a comprehensive understanding of the games it'll offer, but that carries the risk of causing you to miss out on less popular games that become hard to find (not to mention missing out on games because your wishlist ends up so big that some get overlooked). The best way to handle that is to wait for the console to have enough games for you to be happy with the purchase, then buy it. If it doesn't get any further support than that, that's disappointing, but you're already happy with what you've got. There's a world of difference between "I would have been happier with more support" and "I got ripped off."

Master_Magnus posted...
Those remakes better not have new content then, because if they do, videogames are ruined forever.

They will. As I said, enhancing remakes is an essential part of marketing them. Sometimes, those enhancements are just graphical. Sometimes they take the form of new content, which most people actually prefer because that makes it a meaningful upgrade that's worth playing even if one has played the original. Personally, I automatically dismiss any remake of a game I already have that *doesn't* have new content, then with others, I make a judgement as to whether or not the new content is worth buying the remake for (it usually isn't). Either way, get used to it, because remakes are here to stay. If that's enough to "ruin video games forever" because you're just that much of a drama queen, perhaps you should start looking for a new hobby to save yourself some frustration.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Is "Trump made 30,573 false or misleading claims as president" not a claim of this so called fact checker?

This is just embarrassing.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

zebatov posted...

No, I dont do that.

Complaining about people not getting modded, but also not marking people. Hmm...

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Whoa whoa whoa.

You mean to tell me that when you repeatedly and publicly make claims that a product is unreliable and insecure without providing any evidence for those claims, the company that makes that product can sue you for trying to make them look bad? Whaaaaaat?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

The Trump Defense Force really is just sad to watch. So predictably desperate.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Philip027 posted...

Why should I keep playing a game if I'm hating it?

Lots of people say that the problems I had with the game get better toward the end. I say that I'm not willing to wait that long. From my understanding, it's not a small game.

Mostly, the game comes into its own once you can really start exploring, since exploration is probably the thing the game does best. Weapon durability improves a lot (mostly, weapons last longer, though I do feel that the durability system hurt more than it helped), you get enough health to tank a few more hits (honestly, I find that to be a problem with the early game of pretty much every 2D Zelda), you get to see some interesting stuff... I definitely wouldn't say that you have to get toward the end to have a better time with it. It picks up pretty quickly after the tutorial.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Hot chocolate
Bread pudding
Hot mulled cider
Hot buttered rum
Pretty much any spiced cake/pudding

Sure, most of those aren't "foods," but I make my own rules.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Joe_Biden posted...

it's on psp, mobile, pc, and probably something else

There's a PC version? I haven't heard anything of this, and my quick googling is yielding nothing.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Zeus posted...

Asking what's wrong with something people obviously take issue with is lazy and stupid.

Quite the contrary: Not asking what's wrong with something people take issue with is lazy and stupid. Asking such questions is not only reasonable, it's a fundamental, inextricable requirement for anyone looking to claim that they're thinking critically about the issue. That you're refusing to answer such questions speaks volumes about how confident you are in your position.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Master_Magnus posted...

If any hidden gem or cult classic was as good as a good Nintendo game, I would have heard of it by now.

You grossly underestimate just how large gaming's historical library is.

Master_Magnus posted...

It doesn't help to avoid buying the same game twice.

It does, however, avoid that being a genuine problem, financially speaking.

Master_Magnus posted...

Then I will spend $240 on maybe $80 worth of content. It's still a ripoff.

So you waste $160 bucks over the course of 70+ years. Not really worth worrying about. If that's still too hard to swallow, space out your purchases even more so you spend even less, or wait for the ports to go on sale. This is the planning I'm talking about.

Master_Magnus posted...

I cannot afford videogames if I let every game company rip me off.

That's exactly the point: You space out the purchases so you can afford them.

Master_Magnus posted...

The middle ground is still a ripoff. I can't enjoy videogames if I get ripped off.

It's not enough of a ripoff to get that upset about it.

Master_Magnus posted...

My brain is literally wired different from an average human. Unless you have a psychology degree, you are talking out of your ass.

I know there are plenty of people with your problems that have been able to overcome them. Yes, it's going to be harder than for most, but it's still far from impossible.

Master_Magnus posted...

They have a bigger inch now than decades ago.

They also have a much larger library of games to rerelease now than they did decades ago. It makes perfect sense that they'd be making more ports now.

Master_Magnus posted...
They had never ported every single game from one console to the next one, but they did exactly that with Wii U.

They also never had a console fail that spectacularly after investing as many development resources into it as they did with the WiiU. A lot of talent and effort got wasted on the WiiU due to how few people were able to play its games. Porting them is obviously the best decision, both in terms of finances and in terms of respecting the developers' efforts and entertaining as many people as possible.

Master_Magnus posted...
And I can't know when they are going to remake a game

Rule of thumb: If it's worth playing now, it'll still be worth playing in 20 years' time, and that means it's worth remaking so contemporary audiences can enjoy it. You can fairly safely assume that any reasonably popular game will eventually be remade, especially if it's a console exclusive (and therefore can't be played outside of its original generation) and/or has a lot of room to be improved on the technical front.

Master_Magnus posted...
I bought Super Mario 3D World because Nintendo hadn't ported a Mario game in over a decade

No, you bought Super Mario 3D World because it looked like a fun game, which is presumably the same reason you bought Galaxy 1&2, Sunshine, and 64, despite all four of those coming out within a decade of a Mario port (64 was 3 years after All Stars, Sunshine was 9 years later, Galaxy 1&2 were 3 and 6 years after 64 DS, respectively). You're lying to yourself and to everyone around you if you think it was anything more than that (unless you also didn't buy any of the aforementioned four games, in which case... that's really weird, but carry on).

I know you're desperately looking for some way to rationalize how you feel about Bowser's Fury, but you shouldn't pretend your original motivations for purchasing the original were anything more than what they were. That's just enabling yourself to avoid confronting harmful thoughts and behaviours. How you feel about Bowser's Fury is irrational. I know that you know this, and I know that you don't like it and are looking for anything you can grasp onto to avoid having to accept that. This is what psychologists call ego-dystonic anxiety: you're aware that it's wrong to feel it, but you can't help it. It's tempting to avoid it by making up whatever reasons you can find to convince yourself it's not irrational, but you can't keep up that charade, nor can you expect others to enable it for you. You need to accept that your feelings are irrational and learn to work around that fact, rather than pretending it isn't there.

For what's it's worth, being frustrated by all of these ports is reasonable. It is annoying to have improved versions of games released so relatively soon after buying the originals, even if it's not going full Street Fighter. I'm not giving you a hard time for being frustrated by them, I'm giving you a hard time for feeling that your life has been ruined, throwing out objective falsehoods like "Nintendo lied to us and didn't make any exclusives for the WiiU," and demanding that the entire game industry reinvent a perfectly reasonable practice for no other reason than to satisfy your compulsions. There's a ton of middle ground between what you're doing and bending over and buying everything a second time, middle ground which I suspect most WiiU owners occupy (I myself have no plans to buy any of these remakes because I'm satisfied with the originals and the extra content isn't worth $60). That's where you should be, because that's a far more reasonable, healthy position to hold than working yourself into a frenzy like this.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

I'd pay off my and my girlfriend's student loans (~$60k total), my mother's mortgage (~$500k, low-interest enough that the money would be better invested, but that'd be pocket change for me and I think the QoL improvement from being debt-free would mean more to her), and buy my girlfriend's mother a house and move her out here (probably another ~$500k). From there, another $5 million apiece would very comfortably fund both mothers' retirements if invested sensibly, so I'd toss that out as well.

That would bring it down to (assuming half was lost to taxes) $489 million. Invest that at a 3-5% return and it'll make me $15-25 million a year, half of which would disappear to taxes (so $7.5-12.5). 2 x $100,000 of that would go toward funding my two sisters' living expenses (it'd easily cover them, any further luxury is on them to earn for themselves). Another $200,000 would cover myself and my girlfriend very comfortably, and would probably actually be a lot more than we'd need (really, we could get by on $100,000 quite happily). Maybe set aside another $100k for good measure, and that'd leave $7-12 million a year to donate to various local causes (recognizing that donating it would throw off the taxation estimate above, but I can't be bothered to mess with that).

I'd have to look further into that to figure out what causes would be worthwhile and just how far that'd go, but it would single-handedly cover half of the provincial food bank's annual expenses ($16.1 million last year, with $16.3 in revenue), which would be nice. Could probably do a lot for shelter purposes, too, particularly as far as funding a housing-first initiative goes. However, this is all hypothetical, so there's not much point budgeting that out now.

ReggieTheReckless posted...

I guess that's our most direct comparable statistic to exactly what percentage of people are fucking brain dead stupid

Idiots, lol

"HURRR I WON THE LOTTERY IM GONNA BUY EVVVVERYTHING AND LIVE IN A CASTLE MANSION WITH SERVANTS"

Pretty much. More often than not, lottery wins go to people that have very little understanding of how to handle significant amounts of money. They're used to only splurging on stuff when they can afford it, so once they can afford everything, they splurge on everything. It's surprising just how quickly you can burn through even $100 million if you completely disregard trying to hold onto it. It also doesn't help that any significant lottery win results in everyone you've ever known coming out of the woodworks to beg for "just 1 million." Turning that down can be hard, but heeding it adds up faster than many people realize.

There is also the point that being poor tends to result in a fundamental mindset of feeling compelled to spend money on something whenever you have it. That's a simple consequence of always being behind or barely scraping by: the idea of hanging onto money feels foreign and uncomfortable. Obviously, that mentality is inappropriate once you come into a very large amount of money, but it can be really hard to overcome that compulsion.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

party_animal07 posted...

What kind of officer tells someone how to isolate a potential victim?

The kind that assumes the victim is making up the story for attention. Also known as the kind that shouldn't be employed in a position with any degree of authority.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Master_Magnus posted...

If I'm not aware of a game it's most likely not worth playing. Almost every game worth playing is well known.

The very concepts of "hidden gems" and "cult classics" laugh at how obviously wrong this is.

Master_Magnus posted...

No plan will help when game devs re-release games. It's unacceptable to buy the same game twice ever. If I pay $60 for the base game, I'm not going to buy the base game ever again. Unless you have a crystal ball, no plan is going to help because you can't know when game devs will pull a Street Fighter.

Any plan will help you when it comes to long-term financial decisions.

Master_Magnus posted...

If game devs re-release the same game forever I'll never get to play all the content ever because I'll always have to buy the same game again to get the new content.

Hence you skip most of the remakes and only buy them occasionally so you can catch up on whatever content you've been missing. If, hypothetically, Nintendo continues to rerelease SM3DW every 7 years (which they won't, because this is obviously a matter of salvaging effort that was wasted on the WiiU and not a long-term remake strategy), adding new content each time, you can pick up whatever remake comes out in 2049 and get 5 remakes worth of content for $60. Do that again in 2084 and you get another 5 remakes worth of content. Maybe buy another one before you die (by 2084, I'm guessing you'll be well into your 80's, and the next ones would be in 2091 and 2098) if you really want to go out having completed everything that will ever be associated with the game, and you've spent a grand total of $240 on the game over the course of your entire life. $150 if you wait until the remakes are down to $30 before buying them (which is pretty sensible). That's really not the end of the world.

Should you do that with every game? Obviously not. That's really only justifiable for games you really love that are getting worthwhile content with every remake, such that you want to continue supporting them and it's worth paying for some extra content here and there. But the notion that you can't keep up with new content releases without driving yourself into bankruptcy is obviously nonsense. There's plenty of financially sustainable middle ground between the two extremes of buying every remake immediately and categorically refusing to ever buy any remake.

Master_Magnus posted...

You're just a rando on the internet, you have no idea of what I can or can't do.

You're just a human. Your abilities and disabilities are nothing special. You can do the same things any other human can do. It just might take a bit more work.

Master_Magnus posted...

I don't care. If you give an inch to corporations, they will take a mile. I will not give an inch to Nintendo. And I will convince as much people as I can not to give an inch to Nintendo.

As I've said, they've already had this inch for literally decades. They've been rereleasing games with added content for almost as long as they've been releasing games, and despite having more of a retro library to exploit than any other publisher by far, they've been pretty reasonable about it. If they haven't taken the mile by now, they probably aren't going to. On the off chance they do take the mile and go full Street Fighter with their rereleases (which, despite your insistence, they clearly have not)? It's very easy to say "that's not worth buying, so I won't buy it" and/or "If they're going to remake this soon anyway, I might as well wait for a few more versions before buying it," solving the actual problem in its entirety very simply.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Unbridled9 posted...

At best it's not an easy question but here's my opinion. The best cure for darkness is sunlight. Let them spew their vile hatred so that it can be brought to light and our people live in informed strength instead of blissful ignorance.

And when they spew it, call them out for being stupid, terrible people. The notion that "tolerance" means "smile and nod no matter what people do or say" is utterly absurd and solves nothing. If people are doing or saying something objectionable, object to it. If you don't have time for an actual argument, tell them where to shove it and go on with your day. They'll eventually clue in once enough people do so.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

I was playing Crystalis via the NES thingy on the Switch, and I let the Switch's battery die while it was in sleep mode. Turns out the saves I'd made within the game itself didn't survive that, and my only remaining save was the save state I'd made several hours prior. I'm open to going back to it eventually, but that's very much turned me off of it for a while. That's not really the game's fault, though.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.