Lurker > foolm0r0n

Better than being called a jew I guess
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

I thought you have to do like 5 tandem jumps before being able to go solo

Although in other countries you could prob arrange a solo first time jump... have fun with that I guess
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

I thought he was a jew
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

It's a thin line between hating Milo and loving Milo

Milo went through it himself
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Almost everyone signal boosts people they hate on social media because the most engaging emotion by far on those sites is hate. That's the whole point. If you say hateful fringe crap, you WILL be boosted to all the normal people by the algorithms and their own friends. You can't just use those sites and keep to yourself to avoid propaganda, it is thrust upon you. That's why these sites are so deeply valuable to the propagandists.

The only way that can change is if everyone stops engaging with harmful content, but that is never gonna happen. The sites themselves can't fix that even if they wanted, which they don't since everything is working as intended.
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

SmartMuffin posted...

people are getting less and less appetite for being micromanaged by elites, whether politicians or techbros

Not really, they just want a specific kind of micromanagement. It's just like you claiming to want freedom when you really want a specific totalitarianism that you think benefits you. This is why FB and Twitter have lasted so long while MySpace failed quickly.

Totalitarianism is branding. It is purpose and lifestyle. That's what people are attracted to. Forging their own path as an individual is way too much work.

FB and Twitter are still massive boons to racists, nationalists, etc so their downfall will not be progressivism at all. It will be normal people and businesses who are sick of being surrounded by nazis.
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

SmartMuffin posted...

Nah, even as late as the 70s people believed this.

How about 2018? Or are we not counting Vlado as "people"? I'm fine with that tbh, just making sure
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Mr Lasastryke posted...

well, all politicians are liars to a certain extent

To their entire extent

RP wasn't a liar because he was more of a teacher than a politician... even he was a liar when he tried to do political stuff (like the Romney endorsements and such)
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Well that's where wars come from, disagreements about sovereignty

Doesn't matter much to me, I'm cool with taking all of them down
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/07/25/upshot/precinct-map-highlights.html

Much better viz of voting patterns. It shows areas that are really a bubble vs ones that are pretty mixed but still turned out one-sided when you look at counties only.
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

I mean it's not a big step to take. Low skill jobs pay too little so we need state bakeries (shops in general) that have a living wage and hiring quotas. It wouldn't be surprising for her to advocate that.

The biggest roadblock is that Starbucks is one of the biggest bakeries in the country and they pay pretty well, so it wouldn't be a super popular policy. Same with Walmart and such.

Maybe state indie game dev studios?
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

OliviaTremor posted...

Foolmo is trying to sabotage this topic because he bought a lot of Burger King stock.

CFA all the way baby
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Mr Lasastryke posted...

uh, you started this by complaining that i regularly use words in completely wrong ways. if you don't want to argue semantics you should discuss what i'm saying, not attack the way i word things.

It's wrong if you're intentionally ignoring the context of the current discussion when using words. You're confusing things for no reason. That's what's annoying.

Like I'm totally fine with calling Stalin a communist. We all know what is meant when we say that. But like Kenri mentioned, it's also technically wrong. But that doesn't really matter as long as we all have the same understanding. And in the same way, I'm fine with using socialist to mean the definition that I posted before, and you should be too.

Also there's like a 90% chance Ocasio-Cortez will come out explicitly in favor of state bakeries so be careful with that position...
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Kenri posted...

the killings must be unsanctioned, got it

Pretty much

That is literally the unique characteristic of a government
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

The point is all these words obviously have many different contexts and semantics you can use them with so you turning everything into this dumbass semantics argument every single time is a total waste of time. You can't righteously argue that we're using the words wrong when you yourself use the words for their unofficial colloquial meanings.

Just argue the actual concepts for once
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

It also gives them access to your phone information and direct notifications which are very valuable for advertising
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Mr Lasastryke posted...

"the leader of the workers" isn't the government, though

It becomes the government. Obviously the ideal is no government, but it's impossible for that to happen in real life for these reasons. It's the same reason ancap can't exist.
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

SmartMuffin posted...

It's more like wanting a glass of water that's 80% water and 20% cyanide.

In which case no, you do not want water. If you asked for water and I gave you that, you'd be pretty damn angry, and rightfully so.

How angry would you have to get to magically turn the cup into 100% water?
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Mr Lasastryke posted...

well yeah but marx was like "the workers need to kill the capitalists." he didn't say "there should be a ruthless dictator who kills millions of people."

The dictator is just the leader of the workers so technically that's what Stalin and Mao etc were doing.

That's the whole point. If your society requires sanctioned killing to work, then it will always end up with the elite killing the weak. If you look at capital as power beyond just monetary capital, this always ends up with the capitalists on top. This is where "communism can't work" comes from.
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

SmartMuffin posted...

There is no single part of the economy that is free in any meaningful sense.

Which is why you have no problem supporting an ethnocentric totalitarian police state. It's equally free, and hey you get some bonus racial supremacy, so might as well!

There's no doubt that you will ever have anything useful to think or say about freedom with this mindset, when you reject the simple notion that more freedom = good. You're just part of the problem, which I guess isn't surprising since the vast majority of people also are.
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Is there a mcd sandwich worth $1?
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Yeah we know you're using words in completely wrong ways Lasa
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

SmartMuffin posted...

Nope. Government force distorts the free market in all kinds of ways, such that it can no longer properly be called free.

It can be called free to the extent that it exhibits free trade dynamics, even when very deeply distorted. There has not and will never be a market that is completely undistorted. That absolutist rhetoric exists only to give "conservatives" an excuse to embrace totalitarianism/socialism (which they not so secretly love), by ignoring the difference between 80% free and 10% free.
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Mr Lasastryke posted...

foolm0r0n posted...

communism is socialism.

---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

SmartMuffin posted...

socialism and free markets are completely and wholly incompatible

This makes no sense. All we know of in history is socialism mixed with free markets in various degrees. Free markets are naturally pervasive, and all governments in history have some degree of socialism at their core. That's why these 2 concepts are still alive and strong today, they are flexible and exist on a spectrum, unlike absolutist ideas like communism or ancap.
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Mr Lasastryke posted...

et tu, foolmo? i expect the "there's no difference between communism and socialism" bullshit from muffin (and tom woods) but you're usually more reasonable...

There's a difference but communism is socialism. Anything that values collective society over the individual is socialism. It's not that complicated.
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i've used this example a million times before but find me one socialist who goes "THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD OWN ALL THE BAKERIES!"

What? This is probably the most common example of socialism in history, state-owned production of bread. What do you think the lines were for in soviet russia?

Mr Lasastryke posted...

unless someone is literally going "communism is so cool i love how stalin murdered all those people,"

The problem with this though is that it's implied.

Someone says "oh I don't like mass murder and starvation, I just like all the good stuff that comes from communism". But how do you get there without mass murder and starvation? You don't. So you are implicitly advocating going that route. You think the costs are worth it.

It's like when nationalists want white superiority in the US, they are implicitly advocating for a totalitarian police state that has the authority to kill or imprison anyone. There's no other way to get to the goal.
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

3 is really good and has some of the best episodes of the series.

4 is when Harmon got fired, and the show really changed a lot after that, even when he came back in 5. But 5 and 6 turned out great I think. It's probably much better on a binge than when you are waiting months for new episodes.
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

A semantics argument that only matters to people who desperately need to justify their support for 8 million murders
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Villain Pierce is strictly worse than unaware asshole Pierce. People complain about Britta's flanderization but Pierce had it wayyy worse. His S1 scenes are still his best by far. Though it's true that he gives the other characters good material to work with later. And they still bring back classic Pierce pretty often, especially in S3 which has some of his best stuff.
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

b7
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

That's just Hillary thinking the story is democrats vs repuglicans, while Trump legitimately thinks the government are the good guys
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

I will

at some point
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Man all those refugees really helped Europe become great again
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1021234525626609666

Hopefully he'll reinstate the draft when this (and NK inevitably) blows up. That will teach Americans to appreciate their country again.

Also looks like he read 1984:
https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1021832796342562817
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Spec work is free work you do for employers, it's just bad practice from an artist perspective that devalues your work
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

brohan is spongebob confirmed
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Epyo posted...

Eh, I guess I don't know. From the looks of that 2d prototype and some of their GDC talks, it really seemed like emergent gameplay was the original goal. All that "multiplicative gameplay" stuff. And yeah I don't think that's what we got, like when you see that camp of dudes and a boulder on the cliff above them, that's not emergent, that's just being sure to provide many options...

Their GDC talk explained it really well. Emergent gameplay is exponential. Multiplicative is different. It means if there are 10 mechanics, then there are 10*10 = 100 interactions. Emergent systems can create 100 interactions from just like 3 mechanics. But they specifically didn't want that. They wanted only the interactions that they liked and polished to end up in the game. And that took a ton of work but apparently it worked for a lot of people.

It's the difference between guitar and Guitar Hero. One is an overwhelmingly complicated tool of creation and innovation, and the other is a toy that was painstakingly limited in the most fun way. Most open world designers wrongly believe players want the former, while most toy-like game designers don't put in the effort to have those multiplicative mechanics. That's the balance BOTW achieved. I just wish the toy was more fun.
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Leafeon13N posted...

The game never tells you no

It definitely does a lot. That's a big part of what's unique about it. The game actually has an opinion of what you are doing and isn't afraid to say it. Most open world games try to stay as neutral as possible to the player's actions.
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Epyo posted...

BotW is not as emergent as its designers probably hoped it would be

No it's exactly as emergent as they wanted. They spent an insane amount of effort to make it this way.
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

TheGoddamnSanta posted...

There are tons of things you can do in BotW that the developers didn't set up to be that way.

A tiny number of things at best, but most importantly those are all considered bugs/exploits by the designers. That electric example is pretty fun but you can tell it's a bug because they specifically disallowed lightning arrows from doing the job. In other places lightning arrows work as a substitute for electricity, because they wanted you to be able discover that option. But here they wanted you to use the electric ball. Although they might have even left that in on purpose since it's so much more tedious than the actual solution.

The point is, you're wrong if you think there's a lot in the game the designers didn't think about.
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Epyo posted...

It can't be that both sides are wrong, it must a player personality thing

You're off here

There are lots of player personalities who like and dislike certain aspects of open world games, but BOTW is designed differently than those. The main thing is that it IS designed. Every inch of the world is intentionally designed and hand placed by a designer. Most importantly, every interaction is intentionally designed. There is this concept of emergent gameplay where different systems collide to create unexpected results. BOTW has none of that. The devs know about literally everything that happens in the game because they went through and tweaked it all themselves. And so the designer's opinion is felt constantly in every part of the game.

That's the key thing that makes this game way different than any other game, and that's why lots of people like it. A kid on a supervised playground is gonna have way more fun than a kid thrown in the middle of a forest. People say they want a big world where they can do anything, but what they really want is a small manageable set of designed toys to play with, and an authority figure watching them in case they do something wrong. It's the most childlike form of play, an illusion of freedom.

Other open world games focus on either lots of emergent systems (Just Cause, Minecraft) to have a kind of experimental vibe, or on skinner box style loops (Ubisoft, Elder Scrolls) for a more addictive/completionist vibe.

Personally this is why BOTW feels boring as hell to me. I'm all for deeply opinionated games, but the design of this game is just bad. The mechanics are meh, the world is bland. But unlike other open world games, which often have all those flaws, there's no room for me to make my own fun. They just didn't make this game for me at all. I'm sure if you love collecting apples and killing the same moblin over and over it's great though.
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Don't do spec work, also don't work for Gearbox
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

The extra final episode is mandatory. Chris is the best. Mayuri sucks though and I am annoyed she was such a big part of the story. But fortunately she was great after she died.
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4