Please do not connect multiplayer shenanigans into my Doom campaign. It seems vanishingly rare nowadays to get a AAA shooter with as much, if not more, love put into its campaign mode, if it has one at all. Have your death match LAN parties all you like, keep the dream of the 90s alive and all, but I’m not too proud to beg that it stay its own disconnected thing.

Why stop there? “Butt Nut Squash” was right there!

Just anecdotal experience to relate, but the opinion I see most commonly in various threads is that being concerned about SEO and growth metrics and the like fundamentally misunderstands the opportunity the fediverse provides.

At least for me, it’s nice to have a corner of the internet where, for the most part, discussions don’t escalate to the polemical levels that occur when everyone needs to shout to get a word in edgewise.

I admit that my logic stems from the impulse to gatekeep, but my intent would be that we tend to our gardens, as it were, and let the folks who are seeking that kind of experience filter in at a natural rate. For example, while I don’t think that Lemmy needs to juice it’s SEO, I do think it would be a good idea to continue to improve the onboarding process for folks that don’t give a rip about the tech running their social media.

I’m willing to entertain arguments to the contrary, but I think that this approach encourages growth by improving accessibility, while not overwhelming the aspects of the culture that has gotten folks to stick around here at all. The assumption I’m operating under, and I acknowledge its optimism, is that a person who finds themselves on Lemmy is clearly looking for a different experience than what traditional social media offers them, even if they can’t articulate what exactly it is that they’re missing from corporate owned platforms.

To that end, I don’t think it’s necessary to try and ensure our Lemmy beats out Lemmy Kilmeister, who is the singer I’m hopefully correct in assuming people are talking about lol

It’s nice to have my initial reaction immediately validated upon opening the thread, for better or for worse, I gotta say.

Correct.

I think they’re implying you’re making a distinction without difference. OP states the Anti-Federalists opposed the adoption of the Constitution, which was largely modelled after the constitutional monarcy of England. You clarified that they didn’t object based on the system’s model, but rather on the basis of all centralized government being bad. Their response is basically saying, yeah man, the Anti-Federalists were against centralized government , that’s what I said.

I am inferring that OP believes that they had the right of it in the first go, no centralized government is preferable to any centralized government, specifically because of how centralized governance encourages the consolidation of political power into parties.

I’m not nearly well versed in this time period to dissect that argument in detail, but I believe your rebuttal that their plan had been tried under the Articles of Confederation and found wanting, hence the whole debate about the Constitution to begin with, is a fairly succinct counterargument to the position I am sketching out on their behalf (read as: the strawman I have set up).

All of which is to say, I’ve expended entirely too much mental bandwidth on this interaction and need to go touch some grass for a bit.

Now, clearly this was never going to be a release which had oodles of effort put into its bonus features, but is it pretty standard that new releases on home video no longer have commentary tracks? That was the best part of the DVD boom.

I can understand all the creatives involved wanting to get as far away from this radioactive bomb as possible, though.

I don’t know a lot about computers, but I do know a fair amount about bussy. $2000 for 512 is a steal!

I think it might be helpful to really drill into what you want vs what you’re experiencing. You state you have a desire to grow socially, but your attempts to do so have left you feeling symptoms of burnout.

More information about what you feel is expected of you, socially, at work, and what the specific triggers for your negative emotional reactions are would be useful to identify strategies to ameliorate those responses.

Doing some real specious armchair psychoanalysis here, but you’re statement that you do not want to be somewhere where you might be recognized indicates to me, specious armchair psychologist extraordinare, that you perhaps have some self-esteem issues which are going to be a significant impediment to socializing in any context, let alone work. I’m casting aspersions from within my glass house here, but in the worst troughs of my depression, I rationalize self-isolation as a protective measure so that I don’t have to converse with anyone about my life, since I’m not proud of anything I’ve done in those moments. It’s only when I get myself back into a headspace where I have things in my life that I’m excited about and want to share with people that socialization begins to look attractive again. If any of that rings true with you, you might recalibrate your focus from trying to force yourself to enjoy your professional social life and instead focus on the thing that’s actually holding you back from making that a reality.

Good luck, and I hope you find a solution.

First, I think it would be to your benefit to investigate whether this project of yours was even interesting to your grandparents. Youve shared your interpretation of the situation (they are practically homebound and may be missing out on some experience with the wider world), and it seems reasonable, but it does not account for their perspective. They may not be missing anything about the wider world. Or, maybe they are missing some aspect of it, but don’t view “digital tourism” as a valid substitute. Most likely though, they’re just pleased their grandchild is visiting and want to focus on that, rather than the TV or computer.

As an illustrative example, imagine an introvert and extrovert coworkers. The extrovert discovers the introvert has no weekend plans, and assumes that they must be lonely or sad. They, with the noblest of intentions, try to cajole their colleague into going out on Friday night. The introvert, who has been looking forward to finally being able to settle into their latest novel, is upset that the extrovert is projecting a void onto their lives that they don’t see as a void at all.

I’m not saying that that is what’s occurring here, and obviously you know your grandparents better than strangers on the internet, but I do think it’s a possibility that should be investigated before you commit to any plan.

That’s a little reductive. The Division is a primarily PVE looter shooter with MMO trappings. Rainbow 6 is a competitive hero shooter with emphasis on quick kills and gadgets. Ghost Recon is an open world action game with emphasis on stealth.

Don’t get me wrong, “Ubisoft game” could be its own genre at this point, considering the amount of mechanical overlap in some areas, but most of those products do offer generally distinct gameplay experiences. Though, it does seem like Rainbow 6 and xDefiant would be positioned as rivals in market share, upon reflection.

Losing money absolutely does provoke murderous rage, in some people. That’s how we wound up living in a reality with billionaires to begin with.

They link their source in the article, and the source has a FAQ which has their methodology explained in the first question. You are capable of looking at market, you just need to, y’know…look.

In short, they are among the 867 partners on your favorite website who want to install cookies on your browser for analytics. OS info is included in what it reports back home.

I think Cormac McCarthy’s The Road may fit the bill a little bit as far as “hard post-apocalyptic”. I can’t say for sure, as I didn’t finish the book. I found it to be too depressing at the time. Which, duh, but it goes to show that the author is uninterested in the power fantasy that often accompanies the genre.

By all means, I’d expect him to try, however, this is a constitutional amendment. The Supreme Court can’t take back an amendment the way they can strike down laws (I.e. by ruling it unconstitutional for whatever reason), because it IS constitutional by definition.

Thankfully, the Constitution is also very specific about what it takes to amend it further. 2/3 of both chambers of Congress, or 2/3 of state legislatures must vote to just propose an amendment, and then, to pass the amendment, they need 3/4 of the vote. Because the process is enumerated, there’s no legal ambiguity they can use to shape their ruling the way they want. To remove term limits, you must amend the Constitution. To amend the Constitution, you must meet these (intentionally) high thresholds. If A -> then B.

So, unless Trump is able to woo half of the sitting Democrats, as well as 100% of the Republicans, we’re safe from the system being used to guillotine itself (instead, the system will spend the next 4 years hitting itself in the face with a bat). Now, if Trump wants to seize power outside of the system, that’s a different ball game, and the relative friendliness of judges and Congress is a moot point.

I imagine it’s something of a difference in expected audience behavior. I would think that, for most people, looking at a few of the top comments and their replies is all the engagement with a post they want to have. So, a voting system facilitates that process by highlighting a few items the hive mind likes, and leaving the rest in relative obscurity. Whereas forum style posting sort of assumes that everyone present in a thread is in conversation with one another, hence chronological organization.

As neat and tidy as your explanation is, I think you are vastly oversimplifying the concept.

You say the moon is real because you can see it, and you can prove it’s there by telling other people to just go look at it. Alrighty then, I’ve seen bigfoot. In fact, lots of people say they’ve seen bigfoot. Therefore he must exist too, right? The photos “prove” his existence just as much as you pointing to the sky saying the moon exists cause there it is.

Now, I realize that there’s probably some degree of hyperbole in your statement, so I’ll walk this back a little. If the defining metric of your separation between these concepts is whether the hypothesis can be proven through experimentation, that’s all well and good. However, I would argue that, in 99.9% of cases, it’s still a belief statement. Let’s continue with the moon example, but, rather than “seeing is knowing”, let’s apply the same standard that you applied to God. So, you “know” the moon exists, not just because you can see it, but because it’s existence can be empirically proven through experimentation. What sort of experiments would you conduct to do that, exactly? Have you done those experiments? Or, like the rest of the rational world, do you accept that scientists have done those experiments already and decided, yup, moon’s there? Cause, if you’re taking someone else’s word for it, do you personally “know” what they are saying is true, or do you believe them based upon their credentials, the credentials of those who support the argument, and your own personal beliefs/knowledge?

As another example, let’s imagine for a sec we’re philosophers/scientists of the ancient world. I have a theory that the heavier something is, the faster it will fall. You may know where I’m going with this if you remember your elementary school science classes. I believe in the power of experimental evidence, and so, to test my theory, I climb to the top of the Acropolis and drop a feather and a rock. The feather falls much more slowly than the rock. Eureka, I’ve proved my theory and therefore I now KNOW that an object’s weight affects its fall.

Now, anyone not born in 850 BC Athens in this thread will point out that it’s a flawed experiment, since I’m not controlling for air resistance, and if you conducted the same experiment in a vacuum chamber, both objects would fall at the the same rate. However, the technology to test my hypothesis with all of the salient variables controlled did not exist at that time. So, even though it’s now widely known that my experiment was flawed, it wouldn’t have been at the time, and I would have the data to back up my theory. I could simply say try it yourself, it’s a self-evident fact.

Finally, your statement about subjectivity of definition being an obstacle to functional language is so alarmist as to border on ridiculous. If this question were “how do you personally define the distinction between ‘yes’ and ‘no’”, then sure I can get on board a little bit more with your point. However this is much more like ‘twilight’ vs ‘dusk’. Crack open a dictionary and you’ll find that there is a stark, objective distinction between those terms, much as you pointed out that belief and knowledge have very different definitions. For the record, since I had to look it up to ensure I wasn’t telling tales here, sunset is the moment the sun finishes crossing the horizon, twilight is the period between sunset and dusk when light is still in the sky but the sun is not, and dusk is the moment the sun is 18 degrees below the horizon. So, I know that these are unique terms with specific, mutually exclusive definitions. But let me tell you something, I believe that if I randomly substituted one term for another based purely on my personal whimsy, people are gonna get what I mean regardless.

Yes, I believe the figure they cited was that Google earns 73% of their revenue through ads. I imagine what they would have to do is bust up the ad services in addition to the various departments of Google. Each new entity formed gets to keep revenue from ads shown on their platform maybe? E.g. YouTube gets spun off into its own thing separate from Google proper. They get to keep ad revenue from what is shown on their platform, but they don’t get to touch any revenue from sponsored search listings, or from banner ads on other websites, etc.

That’s an approach that makes surface level sense to me, but I am neither a lawyer nor a business bro nor a tech bro. So, I don’t actually have the faintest idea if my idea bears any resemblance to reality.

I’m speculating, but perhaps the thought would be that separating Google Search from the rest of the company would deprive them of the alternative revenue streams they used to maintain their market position? If I remember the ruling against them correctly, one of the key pieces of evidence cited by the judge was that Google spent like 30 billion dollars a year to have 3rd parties use their engine by default.

I disagree with your assessment. To an average user, whatever winds up saved in their browser cache is there mostly unintentionally. Yes, it’s saving info from sites they choose to visit, but after that initial choice, the user is out of the loop. The browser saves what it needs to without user notification or input. I might even wager that most users are unaware of their browser cache, or don’t know what’s in it or how to access it. Therefore, I believe your metaphor perhaps confers too active a decision-making process on something that most people are completely unconscious of.

To be clear, the strawman average user I’m using here is me. I know I have a browser cache, I know vaguely what is stored in it and why, and I know how to clear it if I’m having certain issues. That’s about it. I sure as heck don’t treat it as an archive.