Lurker > adjl

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

No worry about that. The AI has been trained to never say racial slurs even if doing so would stop 10 persons of color from getting hit by a trolly.

Is this research you did yourself, or are you just reporting second-hand somebody else's efforts to fuel their persecution complex?

Ogurisama posted...

Companies will most likely still release trailers and news in June

Yeah, even when actual E3 didn't happen, you'd still see a period of a week or two each year where everybody would make their big announcements digitally. I doubt that model is going anywhere any time soon. Unless you wanted to actually attend, about the only change for you is going to be missing out on people's impressions of floor demos and fewer cringey celebrity cameos and other stage shows pandering to the shareholders in the audience of each press conference.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

No, it's because the artists finally realized they're not safe.

It's a little more than that. A future where all jobs are automated was always inevitable, barring intervention from the handful of people with enough power to intervene (none of whom are on the worker side of the equation, unfortunately), but automation to date has been fairly predictable. Factory workers were automated into obsolescence because designing a machine to do repetitive mechanical tasks is pretty easy. Phone operators were automated into obsolescence because designing a machine to play a recording when somebody hits a button is pretty easy. Self-checkout or other forms of obsoleting cashiers are the natural evolution of everything that's helped cashier's jobs become easier over time (namely, if all they're doing is scanning the item and telling you your total, that's nothing you can't do yourself). These are all what people are fond of calling "unskilled" jobs in that they're relatively simple (distinct from "easy," but that's another discussion) and pretty much anyone can learn to do them if they meet whatever physical requirements are there.

Art is different, as much as you'd like to cynically pretend it isn't. There's a lot of nuance involved and it's very much not something anyone can pick up. The human element behind creativity is something most people believed was a long ways off being able to automate. In truth, it still is, but AI research has produced a serviceable facsimile of it (turns out perfect emulation of the creative process isn't necessary to produce something commercially viable, which isn't all that surprising given how overtly derivative mainstream art tends to be) much sooner than the vast majority of people realized was possible, which has come as a very unwelcome surprise. That's more than just art that's now immediately threatened: Any job relying on creative problem solving is about to become pretty much obsolete because a computer system that can quickly and cheaply come up with a solution by looking at how similar problems have been solved in other cases means there's no reason to pay somebody to do that. That's all of accounting and finance, a good chunk of law, a good chunk of the practical side of medicine, a good chunk of IT... Pretty much the only jobs that are safe from this particular bit of evolution are the ones that rely on too many complex physical movements for it to be practical to replace workers with machines and those on the cutting edge of their respective fields (where there isn't a sufficient body of knowledge available yet to train a NN), and that isn't that many.

Certainly, the fact that those most immediately affected by this development have more expressive skills than many of those previously displaced by AI has made it a particularly vocal and colourful backlash, but it's still definitely not the same as previous examples of automation replacing jobs. This is a big deal, which has come sooner than most people expected and sooner than the world is ready for.

It's also made even worse by the fact that this isn't a matter of new technology being developed that business owners looking to cut costs can order and have installed once it's cost-efficient. Previous examples of losing jobs to automation tended to be gradual, due to the front-end costs, the time it takes to install the new equipment, and the willingness of many business owners to keep long-time employees on instead of min/maxing them out of work. This is happening more or less overnight, thanks to the tools being available digitally for free (or a very low cost) and most of the affected people being freelancers with no fixed employer. A year ago, AI-generated art was just a matter of "hey look at this derpy rocketship made of fish," but now it's generating entire novels and producing visual art that's perfectly possible to sell if you don't ask it to draw hands. This has come insanely fast.

agesboy posted...

it's every conservative listening to tucker carlson daily. just go look at how he's spun the last few days as how trans people are targetting christians

A narrative which he doesn't necessarily believe himself, but continues to spin because he knows it improves ratings among the sizable population that wants validation for their belief that trans people are evil abominations. Transphobes may not be the majority, but there's nevertheless enough of them to present a very real danger.

Yellow posted...

The funny thing is that the anti-trans sentiment is unpopular in real life, and not-terminally online Conservatives don't actually care about them or think about them all that much.

Trans people themselves don't care or think about it as much.

I wouldn't say that. It may not be that popular in the strict numbers sense, but plenty of conservative politicians are virtue signalling by pushing anti-trans legislation and rhetoric for the sake of attracting votes from the more fervent transphobes. Trans people are absolutely under attack in America, even if most conservative voters don't actually care about attacking them, which is why the pushback against such rhetoric is so strong.

I'm planning to do them over the easter weekend.

Skynet's not impossible, but more than AI wiping out or enslaving humanity, the immediate concern is AI replacing jobs without replacing jobs to create a robo-communist utopia. It's hypothetically completely possible to replace all the jobs with AI so nobody needs to work, which would be great, but there's a substantial amount of middle ground between now and then where everybody still needs to work, but AI has taken so many jobs that the vast majority of people can't, and those deciding whether or not to replace jobs with AI will just continue to enjoy all the power that gives them without ever deciding to replace themselves.

That's how ignore works. If you want to hide yourself, you need block.

MightBeOverSoon posted...

Sounds to me like you could make people think it wasn't worth their time at least,

If you have a farm, it's going to be worth somebody's time. You're very much not the only person that recognizes the value of having arable land in such a crisis, let alone arable land that is currently... aring.

BADoglick posted...

It takes a lot to make a stew
A pinch of salt and laughter too
A scoop of kids to add the spice
A dash of love to make it nice
And you've got too many cooks

I was just thinking of that earlier today, for the first time in ages (entirely because a coworker used the phrase "too many cooks"). Weird.

potdnewb posted...

i thought zelda is the princess

That's silly. Why would they name the game after some secondary character instead of the real hero?

ConfusedTorchic posted...

it doesn't matter what it's been changed to

Sure it does. If the problem with durability is that it means you have to keep finding new weapons to use, and it's been changed to a system where you no longer have to keep finding new weapons, then the problem is gone.

Ozmose posted...

Lol! Are you serious?! Saying straight white men are evil is pretty much gospel these days.

When have you ever heard anyone say "straight white men should not be allowed to own guns but everyone else should," except as a hypothetical counterpoint to people that are trying to pretend they have a legitimate statistical basis for saying that about whichever minority is currently in the news for committing a mass shooting (in which case it's very obviously meant to illustrate how ridiculous the idea is because the straight white men suggesting raising the idea would never consider disarming themselves, despite what actual statistics say)? Or are you so detached from the world that you don't think there's a real chance that bills to disarm trans people could actually pass (bearing in mind that bills to jail doctors for practicing gender-affirming care, take children away from parents that get them gender-affirming care, and give teachers carte blanche to pull down kids' pants to make sure they're on the right sports team have already passed)?

There's a very real difference between "most of the evil people in our current society are straight white men" and "most straight white men are evil," which I'm not sure you understand. The former is indeed a common refrain, given that it pretty accurately assesses the world we live in. Very few people are actually saying the latter, except as a time-saving measure in contexts where everybody understands that they actually mean the former.

Lokarin posted...

when did the guv start pulling the Nazi playbook? and then set fire to it for being a book?

1776, give or take.

wpot posted...

These things baffle me to an extent. Back in the day there was no need to carry water around. Now it seems that I'm supposed to carry it with me wherever I go. My wife and kids do this and I have an entire cupboard in the kitchen devoted to water bottles (one of our six prime kitchen cupboards).

Why? It's not clear to me. I understand bringing one to a sport, but not anywhere else really. To each their own, but a bulky water bottle filled with lukewarm water isn't something *I* want to carry around/track. Plus I particularly hate the old ones that taste like plastic.

I'm sure it's supposed to encourage me to drink enough water (and I probably don't) but...annoying.

I just drink water through the day, whatever I'm doing. My bottle is sitting next to my monitor right now, where it sits for most of the day unless I have to go into the office. I go through it quickly enough that it generally doesn't have time to develop a plastic taste, and I don't mind room-temperature water (though I've got an ice machine if I wanted to stave that off for longer).

Cacciato posted...

It was just a pain in the ass that someone might quote Ozmose, and then also respond to you, but I miss out on all of it because Ozmose has me blocked.

Yep. It's a terribly bothersome feature. I understand that it has legitimate benefits in certain cases, but more often than not (at least in my perception, which is admittedly skewed because I don't really care about cases that aren't annoying) people just use it to avoid being called out for being wrong, and those people tend to post often enough that it leaves weird holes in topics. Fixing the quote issue helps to alleviate that, at least.

I've got some Nalgene flip-top one that I've been using for like 5-6 years, since the identical one in a different colour that I used for like 10 years broke.

Though note that changing that will also allow through quotes from people you've ignored, if that matters to you.

Nichtcrawler-X posted...

At the very least, put percentages compared to the whole cis and trans populations and then those numbers might be worth something.

Roughly 1.6% of the US population is trans. By the numbers provided in that tweet, roughly 0.11% of mass shootings have been committed by trans people, or roughly 15 times less than would be expected if it were a truly random sample. The discrepancy is actually probably even higher if you start grouping by age (if you just look at the under-30 crowd, ~5% of Americans are trans), but that becomes a much more complex analysis.

wpot posted...

I don't think anyone can graduate from RPG school until they learn to do that. :) Don't break your cool fire sword on that boring common enemy - save it until you've had it for 20 hours and have lost all interest in it!

You know, you can't buy elixirs, so I'd better save this one. Sure, it's the final boss and I'm going to die if I don't use it, but what if I use it and then there's another phase and I really need it then? Or even worse, a post-game superboss? I'd better just take the wipe and up my game for the next attempt so I'll still have it available, just in case.

*Game ends, elixir sits unused in my inventory forever*

wpot posted...

Agreed - it could be good, but it depends how much it can impact and how far you can go with it. Does it largely solve the durability problem or does it just add an extra step along the way to having weapons break regularly? :) I'll reserve judgment.

The gameplay showcase doesn't indicate whether weapons can be un-fused after being fused, nor if you can extend one's durability indefinitely by just repeatedly adding a rock to it, but I'm kind of okay either way. If you can't un-fuse on command and instead just have to wear out or discard fused weapons you don't want anymore, that gives an incentive to keep a spare copy of whatever weapon you're using around for the sake of being able to fuse it with anything cool you come across. Rather than being an annoying maintenance chore, that plays well into the improvised weaponry concept that made the durability mechanic relatively enjoyable in BotW's early game, especially where the buff from the fusion can offset any losses from using a suboptimal weapon so you don't lose as much by not stockpiling the best thing available. If, instead, you can stave off breakage forever by re-fusing with a new everyday item that's readily available, that is still a tedious maintenance task, but "find rock" is substantially less tedious than "kill 47 Savage Lynels" and offers potential for more interesting shenanigans if you find something more fun than a rock.

Of course, saying this, I'm not sure Zelda is the right place for such a mechanic. Historically, it's been a series that very much focuses on finding a singular legendary sword and using that to kill the BBEG. BotW already messed with that core theme in a way that a lot of people didn't enjoy (the Master Sword didn't break, but the recharge mechanic was a pretty contrived way of shoehorning it into the durability system), and while there's certainly plenty of precedent for having other weapons be better (Biggoron's Sword being the one most series fans will think of first), further deviating from the theme by saying "ignore that legendary sword and instead make your own sword-chucks!" is going to rub some people the wrong way. I expect it'll probably be fun and well worth building a game around, but it really doesn't do anything to scratch the Zelda itch.

wpot posted...

I don't really understand this one. In Skyrim/FF15/etc I had this problem: what you found was repetitive and/or useless. It's a huge problem for open world games.

BotW is the one open world game I've played where I wasn't bothered by repetitive uselessness given the shrines, towers, quests, etc etc. The puzzles hidden everywhere made the world interesting to me. To each their own.

I'm kind of in the same boat. A lot of the "typical" open-world games have maps that are full of stuff, but it's the same stuff copy-pasted over and over again in one of 2-4 different flavours of "bandit camps." BotW certainly wasn't entirely exempt from that, in that a lot of the enemy camps had very similar structures and there wasn't much enemy variety, but it didn't go overboard stuffing the world full of those, and instead exploring meant I got to stumble across a unique puzzle every now and then. The preponderance of combat shrines was an issue, and I often found it pretty disappointing to put in the time to find, get to, and unlock a shrine only to have it be the same fight I'd done a dozen times already (worse because even the hardest combat shrine got pretty trivial after clearing it 3-4 times and having later-game weapons to work with), but I really don't understand the complaints that the world is "empty" because it hasn't been stuffed with repetitive busywork. That's a good thing, in my books.

Canada actually just switched to Gamestop. EBGames Canada has been owned by Gamestop for like 10+ years at this point, but they only stopped calling themselves EBGames like a year or two ago.

This has been yet another generation where Nintendo+PC is the clear winner. The vast majority of multi-plat stuff (and even a lot of former exclusives, more so than previous generations) also ends up on PC with better potential performance, more accessibility (consistent sales that require no effort to find, the option of lowering settings to avoid having to buy new hardware, etc.), and community-generated improvements in many cases. The Switch offers more and often better exclusives than what the alternatives provide (especially when those other exclusives end up coming to PC anyway), with a system that offers something beyond "a PC that you can't do anything other than game with" (though the Steam deck has made some strides in also filling that niche, albeit at a much less attractive price point).

potdnewb posted...

you dont think suggesting homosexuality isn't a natural occurrence is offensive...

It was pretty obviously tongue-in-cheek.

Two guys walk into a bar.

The third one ducks.

It's a good thing for your personal appearance, but a bad thing for your photography skills.

MeatiestMeatus posted...

Gotcha. Still, not difficult to see that it's not a completely left-field point if one bothers to rub a couple brain cells together before responding to your post

Indeed. Mostly, I'm not suggesting that it's justified, I just understand why it might have happened, the wider-reaching consequences of that root cause, and what can be done to address that root cause (namely, people should stop being transphobic doogiewonkers) before more people continue to get hurt. This is not the first time that transphobia has resulted in dead kids (assuming this is an example of that issue), and it won't be the last. There just usually aren't any non-trans victims.

Presumably his mod history. They tend to be ridiculously trigger-happy for anyone with any recent violations on record.

MightBeOverSoon posted...

I quoted the only part anyone needed to hear

Again, an assessment you make without knowing what else is there.

MightBeOverSoon posted...

I dont really like victim blamers.

You married one. Schmen was rather fond of the phrase "there are no victims, only volunteers."

Ozmose posted...

The thing is, she didn't target the school. She targeted random kids in the school. Targeting the school would be more like burning the building down, or shooting the administrators that runs the place.

You say this as a lucid, rational person. Lucid, rational people generally don't commit mass murder, so thinking about mass murderers in lucid, rational terms is often a mistake. Beyond that, though, one of the victims was one of the administrators running the place (though whether she was in charge when the shooter was a student is currently unknown), and the shooter could very easily have arrived at the conclusion that they could hurt everyone else in charge by killing people they cared about (students and colleagues). There are more ways to hurt somebody than just shooting them, after all.

MightBeOverSoon posted...

"Did that girl who was wearing skimpy clothes deserve to get raped? No, of course not, but that doesnt mean blah blah blah"

^^^^literally you right now. stop being a clown and acting like there is any justification for what happened. what you said was victim blaming. cut and fucking dry.

I like how you openly admit to not reading what I've said, then try to tell me what I've said. I also like how you're equating "maybe people shouldn't be transphobic douchebags to improve the mental health of trans people" to "we should police what women wear for their own safety," which says a lot about how much thought you've actually put into the issue.

MightBeOverSoon posted...

Literally all you needed to say to let people know what you meant. The rest of that is just you trying to justify what you know full fucking well is wrong.

So you don't assign any responsibility to an abusive parent for the outcome of being killed by their abused kid?

MeatiestMeatus posted...

adjl was speaking to a potential motive for the shooter being having possibly been abused by people at the school. The school represents a place where substantial trauma occurred for them (allegedly, motive is still unclear and may never be known). The children, and possibly the adults, were innocent bystanders, which is something adjl spoke to if you were paying any attention

Soooo... Shooter targeting the school where they were abused, child targeting their abusive parents... Not hard to suss out the comparison

I was more just raising a scenario in which it's very easy to defend blaming the victim, leading in to the conclusion that victim blaming is sometimes appropriate with a few truckloads of caveats (most notably, trying to avoid "they deserved this" and instead focusing on "this is what people in similar situations can do to prevent similar outcomes"), but that's also relevant. They targeted the school as an institution, irrationally lashing out over some perceived harm (real or otherwise, though as I insinuated, a trans student at a Christian private school in Tennessee probably did suffer some real harm). Most or all of the individual victims were most likely just bystanders in that attack. The blame I'm considering is to the school as an institution (and transphobic culture in a broader sense), not for any of the individual victims.

Ozmose posted...

She killed a bunch of young children. Not sure how you equate them to an abusive parent.

I don't.

MightBeOverSoon posted...

So those innocent kids were like abusive parents to this person they never met?

adjl posted...

Did the school deserve to be shot up? No. There's zero chance that the child victims had anything to do with the shooter's mental state and a significant chance that at least 2/3 adult victims were similarly innocent

Oh hey, look at me saying exactly the opposite of what you thought I said. That's gotta be embarrassing. If only you could have avoided this somehow.

MightBeOverSoon posted...

It's just yes. And then you wrote a novel to justify it and nobody's going to read it. Certainly not me. I don't listen to victim blamers.

If an abused child kills their abusive parent, do you assign any responsibility for that outcome to the abusive parent?

MeatiestMeatus posted...

Dang that's good. I'm way behind in my jrpgs. Haven't finished XC2 yet, let alone started XC3. Still need to finish Nier Automata...

What I really need to do is stop buying so many games since my backlog has become downright oppressive

It's now shifted to the theme from the final dungeon in XC2, so apparently I've just got a case of Xenobrain.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

if Trump hires a lawyer to stop someone from writing a book about them and they don't write a book why would he conclude that he's paying anything other than legal fees?

... Did you really just try to claim that hiring a lawyer to stop somebody from writing a book doesn't qualify as "hush money"? Like you literally just spelled out the process by which money is used to hush somebody.

More than that, though, if you hire anyone for anything, you don't just blindly give them a blank cheque because the problem is solved. You find out ahead of time what they expect it to cost, then when they give you the bill at the end you look for explanations for any discrepancies between that and the quote so you don't get ripped off by a roofer who billed his new car stereo to you. This is especially true when you're working with something like campaign funds that have strict rules around what they can and cannot be used for. When you're responsible for how money is used, you pay close attention to how it's used. At the absolute best, you're painting Trump as somebody too financially incompetent to be allowed access to campaign funds (let alone a federal budget), which is only marginally better than the apparent reality that he's wilfully misusing them for corrupt self-interests.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Exercising freedom of expression. Silently praying. Having the wrong opinion. Being the wrong race. Calling someone 'dude'.

And how is Trump protecting you from being arrested for any of those things? For that matter, what makes you believe that there's a genuine risk of being arrested for any of those things?

MightBeOverSoon posted...

Nice victim blaming.

Yes and no. Did the school deserve to be shot up? No. There's zero chance that the child victims had anything to do with the shooter's mental state and a significant chance that at least 2/3 adult victims were similarly innocent (the substitute teacher probably wasn't even there 20 years ago, the custodian likely had little interaction with the former student, the only plausible personal vendetta would be against the "top administrator," and even that's just speculative), and even if one or more of them were responsible, that doesn't mean they deserved to die for it. Did the school as an institution play a role in the shooter's mental health deteriorating to such a critical point? Almost certainly.

It's likely not the only factor in that, since it would only have been part of a broader transphobic culture that harmed the person's mental health, but it's still important to recognize the role the school played in the mental health of this and every other trans person who attends/attended. Even if we still want to shy away from blaming them for the shooting because victim blaming feels icky, I expect there are plenty of cases where they can be blamed for trans (or gay, for that matter) people experiencing depression or anxiety, having relationships fall apart because they tried to force themselves to be something they aren't, self-harming, or committing suicide. That's just the reality of what anti-LGBT culture does to LGBT people.

Now, of course, this is speculation. Maybe the school is actually super LGBT-friendly and just ended up being a target because the shooter fell into a rabbit hole of self-loathing transphobia and blamed the school for not doing enough to discourage them from coming out. We don't know for sure, and probably never will because any understanding we have of their motivations is going to be heavily filtered through the police and media. The bottom line, though, is that addressing this epidemic of gun violence has to include addressing the mental health issues that are underscoring it, and for gay and especially trans people suffering from mental health issues, anti-LGBT culture plays a substantial role in causing them. That needs to be called out for more reasons than just "this one time a trans person shot up a school," because - like all mental health issues - it's causing far more harm than just what makes national headlines. The only way to curtail this is to address that.

josh posted...

I think I have it right now, but my inaccurate home tests keep coming back negative

Are you swabbing just your nose, or also your throat? The directions for most rapid test kits will only say to do your nose, but if you use the same swab for your throat first (get right back to the edge of the soft palette, avoiding your tongue, you'll probably gag if you do it right) before going mining for boogers, it fairly substantially decreases the false negative rate. It's still not perfect, and tests often won't return a positive until ~3 days after infection (even with symptoms), but it can help.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Hey, so... what crime did Trump commit? The latest correction to the narrative is that Trump's lawyer took it upon himself to pay the porn star, then charged Trump legal fees as a reimbursement. Which means that Trump didn't know that she had been paid off, or what the money had been put toward other than what he had been billed for.

If by "correction to the narrative," you mean "excuse that Trump's legal team has advised him to use because it's hard to prove it false," sure. It's pretty common for those participating in fraudulent or other dubious activity to build in some degree of plausible deniability so that they can throw a couple front-line employees under the bus and claim they had nothing to do with it. You probably shouldn't be so quick to accept claims like that at face value, especially when your supposed "defense" of Trump is apparently "He just blindly used campaign funds to pay unspecified 'legal fees,' so he bears no responsibility for what those fees actually were." That's not exactly painting a picture of somebody using campaign funds responsibly.

Now, to return to a previous question, what exactly do you think Trump is protecting you from being arrested for?

Ozmose posted...

Funny how that push seems to vanish when it's a white male shooter. It's almost like they want to create some kind of public bias.

I see the push pretty unilaterally. Identifying shooters gives them recognition, and very often the primary motivating factor for a shooting like this is that those around the shooter have failed to recognize how disturbed they are. Somebody on the edge sees somebody else fall off of it and get the whole country talking about them? That's going to seem awfully attractive, and that's a problem no matter what demographic they belong to.

Statistically, the vast majority of mass shooters are males, and the majority of them (at least, a proportion that's in line with the general population) are white if you discount gang violence that happens to qualify as a mass casualty event (which tends to involve fewer white people for SES reasons and also happens for different reasons than what most people associate with "mass shooting," so discounting that is reasonable). There isn't even any particular need to create a bias in public perception because what you're calling "public bias" is just statistical reality.

Ozmose posted...

Here are the true champions of gun control. It's heartwarming to see so many people here share the same philosophy.

Why would you consider them to be the "true champions" and not the dozens of countries that have enacted effective gun control laws without committing genocide? Or are you one of those people who genuinely believes it's only a matter of time before every country that isn't as well-armed as the US gets murdered by their government?

Yellow posted...

Get this, a transgender female shooter this time.

A trans person who attended a Christian private school in Tennessee and ended up with severe mental health issues later in life? I can't imagine how that happened, or why the school ended up being the target of their breakdown.

Gaawa_chan posted...

https://twitter.com/VaushV/status/1640597506475327488
JFC.

I mean, I can see the concerns there, but any sensible gun control laws would have to entail a mental health assessment for the prospective license holder, and that would likely end up ruling out a solid chunk of trans people. Now, that's very different from saying "all trans people must be disarmed no matter how well-adjusted" and even ends up running into an odd loophole in that gender dysphoria is commonly no longer considered a mental disorder (instead physical, aligning with the medical focus of treatment options instead of psychological), and it's a lot more sweeping than "only the trans people should be disarmed," but the end result is that a disproportionate number of trans people wouldn't be eligible to own a gun. I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing, provided it's done on the basis of a proper mental health assessment and not simply saying "all trans people are mentally ill," but "don't take away trans people's guns" also doesn't quite work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOGhlZZJo8w

Not really sure why, but I'm okay with it.

Krazy_Kirby posted...

if you think sf doesn't have crazy people who think they/others are gods, then you have never been to sf

Everywhere has crazy people, manifesting in all sorts of ways.

Why do you believe that the substances identified here do not cause harm?

Ozmose posted...

Alright Im done here. Youre getting all spun up like a bunch of nut jobs. Im not going to sit and argue with a dozen people that are already set in their ways. You can kick rocks.

It's a simple question. How does a picture of the shooter help understand the situation? Reconciling your desire for a picture with your belief that the media is exacerbating the situation is more complicated, so I'm okay if you just stick to processing that one internally instead of responding to it, but the first question should be easy to answer.

Metalsonic66 posted...

https://youtu.be/I0Jf5gU39mc

I did think of this video on seeing this topic. There is definitely room for "you're playing it wrong" to be a genuine effort to help the person enjoy the game more, even if more often than not it's just a bunch of pointless, pretentious gatekeeping.

Nier Automata had an area like that, but I'm not sure I'd compare it to more typical examples.

Ozmose posted...

The fact that they really don't want people to see the person that did it. When I google "nashville shooter identity" I get back a whole 2 photos in google images. I'll add that's 2 more than there were when I made my first post.

How does a picture help understand the situation?

Heck, for a guy going on about how social media and mainstream news are creating this problem, you're now actively promoting one of the biggest ways in which they do so: By making the shooter famous. Giving the shooter less recognition is overwhelmingly a good thing in terms of effecting the cultural change needed for America to be safe with guns.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Stupid auto correct and my own lax proof reading.

Personally, I thought it was a great typo. Some very entertaining mental images.

MightBeOverSoon posted...

You sound like a good dad

Reproducing? In this economy? That hardly seems wise.

More than that, though, it's simple risk analysis: Pulling a kid out of something that is trivially risky "for their safety" while continuing to do things that are far more dangerous just doesn't make sense. Everything is a matter of risks and benefits, and the benefits of being socially better-adjusted than most home-schooled kids generally outweigh the minute risk that somebody shoots up their school. If I were going to be so overprotective as to keep my kid safe at home forever, there was never really any point in having one in the first place.

Ozmose posted...

They sure are doing their best to bury the lead on this one.

Which lead, exactly, do you believe is being buried?

MightBeOverSoon posted...

Honestly, if you're not homeschooling your kids at this point you're willfully endangering them

Realistically, as much as school shootings are an inexcusable epidemic, your kids are still substantially more likely to be killed by a car on the way to school than by a shooter, thanks to how fundamentally broken and unsafe American car infrastructure is. Home schooling also eliminates the "on the way to school" part of that, but the risk is still present any time they leave the house, and becoming a hermit out of fear of danger generally isn't a very healthy thing to do.

MightBeOverSoon posted...

That would be my ex.

Huh. I didn't actually pick up on that this time. Other accounts, you've acted distinctly enough from him that I figured you were indeed a different person, but this time the first pass made me think Schmen more so than anyone else. Granted, "the first pass" has been like a dozen posts that I didn't pay very close attention to, but I still would have expected to catch it. Go figure.

The forbidden OJ.