User comment history
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ] Older >
| News Comments > Blacklight: Retribution Closing in March |
 |
| 5. |
Re: Blacklight: Retribution Closing in March |
Feb 10, 2019, 10:23 |
djinn |
|
|
MattyC wrote on Feb 9, 2019, 21:04:
You know you can still play online too right? It doesn't have to be bots. 
Same with Quake 1. Though be prepared to have your ass handed to you if you haven't played in a while. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Star Citizen Spending $4M Per Month |
|
| 67. |
Re: Star Citizen Spending $4M Per Month |
Jan 26, 2019, 08:19 |
djinn |
|
|
dsmart wrote on Jan 24, 2019, 17:53:
1) That's never going to happen. If it did, then it would be public
2) Yes, a publisher is totally going to give money to the guy who couldn't ship a SINGLE game, even after getting over $200m in FREE MONEY. Aside from the fact that he already tried that BEFORE he started Star Citizen, and those he went to - including EA - laughed him out of the room
3) They have been marketing the game. You should read their financials one day
4) There is already a monthly sub that some backers are paying. No gamer is dumb enough to pay a sub for a tech demo
5) The game has zero monetization hooks. So how exactly is F2P going to work?
It's hilarious that you think they haven't thought of all options, but they ignored all of them in exchange for selling a part of the company for $46m in bailout money - even as they were burning more money than they were making. Are you high?
I agree with some of your points, but some of my latter bullets were more in relation to turning it into a traditional release if they needed more funding.
Overall I have to say you might be confusing me with someone who cares. I like entertaining solutions even to the most ridiculous problems and I see many for this one. It might be hard to swallow since you've been pretty consistent in your crusade, but I also think of it in terms of "hey, DS might also be right". Time will tell and I'll still sleep well  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Star Citizen Spending $4M Per Month |
|
| 66. |
Re: Star Citizen Spending $4M Per Month |
Jan 26, 2019, 08:11 |
djinn |
|
|
El Pit wrote on Jan 24, 2019, 11:36:
I know it's hard to accept that you lost money by believing a snake oil salesman, but it's better to accept it and walk away then to stand with him in front of the people, defending him and his magical snake oil. Good luck with that!
Hate to break it to you but I didn't spend a dollar on this. I won't either until they have a finished product. I'm too old school to pay money up front for a wip, plus there is so much choice out there now of quality, albeit time consuming projects it's not even an issue. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Star Citizen Spending $4M Per Month |
|
| 26. |
Re: Star Citizen Spending $4M Per Month |
Jan 24, 2019, 08:25 |
djinn |
|
|
I know it's the game to hate on Blues, but there's at least a couple of ways I can think of to bring in new money.
Agreement with Amazon to funnel features directly to Lumberyard. Wouldn't be surprised if this is already a deal behind the curtain and providing funds already.
What they have now could be used as a vertical slice to present to publishers. Considering the community that supports it, they could secure a deal with any number of publishers without much fuss.
An actual marketing campaign. While it costs money upfront, if handled correctly could generate a lot of funds in sales. At the moment it's coasting on word of mouth. Of course they need a final product :/
An ugly per month subscription model like wow. Though that's long since a dead model, you never know if it could be revived under the right circumstances.
The inevitable shift, after some of the above steps to free-to-play, wringing out the last drops of money from customers.
None of the above options are viable unless they can finish some goal of course |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > etc., etc. |
|
| 8. |
Re: etc., etc. |
Jan 24, 2019, 06:48 |
djinn |
|
|
VaranDragon wrote on Jan 24, 2019, 02:29:
and a chance to get the fuck out of Poland and work for a company which (at least on a resume) looks much much better than a Polish upstart.
Yep. The Zloty doesn't go far outside of Poland. While companies pay well relative to cost of living, this only works if you decide to live the rest of your life there. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Is Technomasculinity a Thing? |
|
| 39. |
Re: Is Technomasculinity a Thing? |
Nov 15, 2018, 00:30 |
djinn |
|
|
Orogogus wrote on Nov 14, 2018, 10:45:
Uh huh. You have a physical difference you don't understand, you just know it's there, so you say, "the stereotypes are true." Sure.
From the study:
"For the first time we can look across the vast literature and confirm that brain size and structure are different in males and females. We should no longer ignore sex in neuroscience research, especially when investigating psychiatric conditions that are more prevalent in either males or females."
The current trend is to question years of observation and study, so it's a burden of proof and while the researchers above need to do more work (also stated in the article that they don't yet know it's impact on behavior), the odds are stacking against you.
I'd prefer to look at real research from medical professionals than a Dr of Mass Communications making assertions which appeal to those handing out research grants. You know, because it's the trend of the day. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Is Technomasculinity a Thing? |
|
| 35. |
Re: Is Technomasculinity a Thing? |
Nov 14, 2018, 05:19 |
djinn |
|
|
Orogogus wrote on Nov 14, 2018, 04:43:
It's like the racist pseudoscientists who'd identify a random physical difference between Africans and Caucasians and proclaim it as proof that Africans are an inferior race.
Speaking of huge leaps... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Is Technomasculinity a Thing? |
|
| 33. |
Re: Is Technomasculinity a Thing? |
Nov 14, 2018, 03:32 |
djinn |
|
|
Interesting. I remember not just the 90's but into the 2000's the vast majority of girls being completely uninterested in anything to do with games.
Suddenly after becoming a 100 billion dollar plus industry it's a problem.
[edit] The professor's doctorate is in mass communication but he's writing papers casting doubt on biological research:
“Gender is socially organized in the West in a hierarchized binary differentiating men and women along supposedly natural or biological masculine and feminine traits,” said Johnson.
This comment was edited on Nov 14, 2018, 04:13. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Saturday Metaverse |
|
| 68. |
Re: Saturday Metaverse |
Aug 23, 2018, 10:50 |
djinn |
|
|
Beamer wrote on Aug 23, 2018, 10:34:
But Twitter is the middle ground. Those that it kicked off went to Gab, who are, well, proving why they were kicked off. No "middle ground" people have been kicked off.
Though, if you're wondering why Twitter seems a bit left, perhaps it's because Twitter tends to be younger and more educated, and younger and more educated America tends to be left? Perhaps Twitter reflects the majority? At least, if you ignore the idiots on the very far side that get angry over anything, but there's typically 5 of them with 10 followers and no one pays attention until the idiots at TumblrInAction start amplifying it by doing the exact thing the Twitter idiots first thought was happening.
There's no chance twitter or any other organisation can moderate the amount of information their platforms output and so by definition an algorithm will have to deal with it. This type of automation will only serve to create more echo chambers, because it will automatically lead to promoting the most 'relevant' conversation. Just project this tech backward into some other time periods and think how it would be used or what ideas would float to the surface. It might not be a big issue yet, but I'm almost certain it will be in future.
One of the reasons why I still love Blues. Reddit voting system sometimes makes some good comments disappear under the weight of the mob. It's a sad end and I'm just trying to extrapolate a worst case scenario. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Saturday Metaverse |
|
| 66. |
Re: Saturday Metaverse |
Aug 23, 2018, 10:11 |
djinn |
|
|
Beamer wrote on Aug 23, 2018, 08:56:
snip
I never used caps anywhere and your paraphrasing is completely off. Seems like you're projecting at this point.
Still haven't addressed your own faults I see. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Saturday Metaverse |
|
| 65. |
Re: Saturday Metaverse |
Aug 23, 2018, 10:07 |
djinn |
|
|
edit: @beamer
I agree with a lot of what you're saying here, so much of this is likely misunderstanding or poor communication on my part. I don't agree with your first bullet point though. I don't think there should be a distinction between less bias or more. All forms of bias in media are wrong and we need to start coming down hard on organisations that display it.
It's creeping into media everywhere. There's very little news presented without an angle and that's an issue for everyone. It's divisive and you can see the results. I'm suggesting if all media outlets dropped the bias and stuck to pure facts without any skew this whole situation would be better for all of us. This is what we should all be fighting for.
Look at gab.ai the supposed answer to twitter which is open and free, aside from the fact that they got threatened by MS if they didn't remove a couple of posts recently. Go there and you'll be treated to an array of anti Jew sentiment and other 'savory' topics. Sure, that's the price of being a free and open platform, but is that what we're left with? Either a left leaning twitterverse or gab.ai on the other extreme? Where's the middle ground these days in terms of discussion? Wait till things get truly decentralized. It's going to be a total mess, because there won't be anyone culpable at that point.
Jack says in the link above that they are left leaning, but don't use that in their algorithms. In the full interview which doesn't include the above snippet he makes some good points, but ultimately I don't think an algorithmic solution can work. It will just lead to mob rule. Whatever political viewpoint that's popular at the time will be the one that survives and this is immensely dangerous. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Saturday Metaverse |
|
| 58. |
Re: Saturday Metaverse |
Aug 23, 2018, 08:36 |
djinn |
|
|
Beamer wrote on Aug 23, 2018, 07:23:
I read nothing wrong. You've been arguing about the numbers while claiming to be arguing about bias.
It's odd, and kind of weasely. "Why did the media say the numbers were greater?!" Well, because they were. "Yeah, but why did they say that?" Because it was factually accurate? "No it wasn't!" It was. "Ok, but that's because protestors blocked the entrances, and no one showed it."
Yes, no one, not even Fox News. You'd think, had this been an issue, Fox would have been all about it. Your proof that it occurred is a poorly shot video of one entrance. Even if one entrance was blocked, there were dozens, as evidenced by all the people walking by past the gate. And there were cops. Were cops in on this, too?
The only reason you'd think it's weasely is because you can't put me into a little left or right box that you seem to be eager to do. My stance has been consistent the whole way, so let me simplify it for you.
Media is biased. There's no question, regardless of the flawed example used. I admitted using a flawed example and if that makes one a "weasel" so be it.
Numbers are not a metric of a good leader, so the argument from both sides is pathetic to say the least.
Media placed a lot of emphasis on this and they used the lack of numbers as an example to discredit where Trump was trying to use it for credibility.
In looking into the video posted by NKD I found another part to the story.
I notice you conveniently left out any explanation of misreading the tldr. "both left and right media are terribly biased", which you replied with "they double down with "but actually, the Left is the one that's misinforming!" It's really not hard to say "yea you're right I did do that". Try it some time. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Saturday Metaverse |
|
| 56. |
Re: Saturday Metaverse |
Aug 23, 2018, 06:58 |
djinn |
|
|
Sepharo wrote on Aug 22, 2018, 14:49:
I think you'd be a lot less misled if you cut down on the amount of "evidence" you get from youtube videos.
Well some of those videos are pure documentation but I can see you didn't really look at any of the information posted. Like this for example Not to mention it was investigating NKD's video that showed the initial error, so should we discard that also?
The vid Cthulufan posted was a guy who'd referenced a story which still turned out to contain errors even after checking sources. Nothing exactly ignorant in referencing information like this.
A few people in this discussion have exhibited ignorance though, including myself. Beamer for example misread a tldr and other points even though the information is there.
Point is, we're all guilty sometimes. The important part is to admit it and keep looking for truth. I got no problem in doing that.
This comment was edited on Aug 23, 2018, 07:19. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Saturday Metaverse |
|
| 55. |
Re: Saturday Metaverse |
Aug 23, 2018, 06:35 |
djinn |
|
|
RedEye9 wrote on Aug 22, 2018, 09:45:
djinn wrote on Aug 22, 2018, 06:42:
...someone who'd won the vote President Hillary Rodham Clinton won the vote.
President Hillary Rodham Clinton 65,853,516 48%
dRumpf 62,984,825 46%
Except that's how the system works so people blocking entrances with signs saying "illegitimate" are ignorant of their own system. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Saturday Metaverse |
|
| 49. |
Re: Saturday Metaverse |
Aug 22, 2018, 06:42 |
djinn |
|
|
Sepharo wrote on Aug 21, 2018, 14:28:
Why did you make a mile long post about peculiarities in ground photos when there are aerial photos, both taken from peak attendance, that clearly show the difference?
It was stepping through the process of how I didn't trust the original comparison and how I found out another part to the story.
The main overall point I was stuck on was not being able to reconcile how someone who'd won the vote had a ridiculously low turnout which caused my initial doubt of that image. There had to be more to the story. The videos showing protestors blocking people forcefully from entering was something I didn't actually hear about until now. It shows how little attention the media placed on that part of the story.
It shines a light on both parties and what their motivations are. A high turnout according to Trump would mean he is a popular leader. A low turnout according to the media would mean he is a hated one. In some strange way the conclusions are true and untrue for both parties, that's how divided the "United" States has become. I just find the whole situation really dirty on both sides.
Cthulufans video below was quite a good watch in that regard (unrelated to this particular example) but still quite honest and well presented. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Saturday Metaverse |
|
| 47. |
Re: Saturday Metaverse |
Aug 21, 2018, 08:44 |
djinn |
|
|
Beamer wrote on Aug 21, 2018, 08:18:
I mean, you know even the White House admitted there were fewer people there in person over a year ago. You were here fighting a fight even Trump himself conceded. But you say you're usually well informed.
For some reason, it seems like the pro-Trump people here are usually the opposite of that. That, or they think being "informed" is watching YouTube videos from individuals and thinking that's how to be reliably informed. Actually, kind of wagering that's you. But that's two big pro-Trump posters in two days admitting that they don't know what they're talking about and, rather than saying "hey, wonder if there's anything else I'm ill-informed about that I have very strong opinions on," they double down with "but actually, the Left is the one that's misinforming!"
Quite clear you only read the tldr as you're making some fairly ignorant assumptions of your own. I said numerous times I was not arguing the numbers were larger, as that was not the point of the discussion. It was about bias in media. Try and find a single instance of where I have said I am pro Trump.
edit - From the tldr: "both left and right media are terribly biased", which you replied with "they double down with "but actually, the Left is the one that's misinforming!" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Saturday Metaverse |
|
| 45. |
Re: Saturday Metaverse |
Aug 21, 2018, 07:30 |
djinn |
|
|
NKD wrote on Aug 19, 2018, 12:19:
If they are using an image of peak attendance, it's very hard to accuse them of any bias in image choice.
tldr; I was wrong the video and ccn image were right. It doesn't change the fact that both left and right media are terribly biased, it just highlights that I need to research more and choose words more wisely. Normally I’m obsessive about both of those things but failed here with a poor example.This image pretty much sums up my thoughts on the numbers competition overall.
***
Looking at the vid I noticed the cross fade at 46 seconds and wondered why they edited there. Nothing nefarious as crowd size and layout doesn't change much before and after the edit. It lead me to discover a little bit more about what happened on the day.
Since he won by a very narrow margin it seemed strange why there'd be such a difference in crowd size. I mean the argument from both his side and the medias is nothing more than a 'measuring' contest anyway and by no means the measure of a good leader (Nuremberg rally comes to mind), but I wanted to find out why the disparity.
First thing I noticed in the video is that people continued to stream in right up to the point before the speech ended. I checked the earthsat gigapixel which shows Trump on the stage and then shows a super low crowd size in the direction of the monument. Zoom in and compare that with either the cnn gigapixel which is a higher elevation than earthcam, or this one.
Why are the images so different? Also why are there crowds of people on the streets both left and right side of this image, but not at Obama’s? The only conclusion is that large movements of people must have happened in a very short period of time, since his speech was only 17 minutes long.
As I looked around I kept running into stories saying there were security checkpoints which lead to very slow processing times and some of the entrances were blocked by protestors. Had to take that with a grain of salt until I found some evidence that might be happening. If people had to do what the guy at 13 minutes had to do, it’s no wonder the crowds looked thin. At 13:30 to 15 minutes you can see what the photographer was dealing with in terms of directions by police. This would also explain why crowds of people were around the Washington monument Here’s another example of redirection leading to no shows or late arrivals. There are many others.
Anyway at the risk of making this post 14 pages long I think the end point is the same. Media made attendance the focus, rather than the obstruction or general disorganization with security checkpoints slowing entry. Trump arguing that the numbers were larger when he already secured the position was also either dishonest or ignorant since what he saw is skewed by the lower angle he saw the crowds from.
Ps. The only image I can say that is not to be trusted is the earthsat gigapixel. It looks like a stitch from different times, though I have to wonder how as lighting conditions are roughly uniform and the sky seems to be the same moment in time. Check this 360 video. Trumps speech starts at the 44 second mark. If you pan a little right and look at the section near where disabled people are lined up you will see a seated section that’s filled the entire time. Looking at the earthsat image of the same section, it’s almost empty. Now rotate the camera toward the monument on the earthsat pic and keep cnns gigapixel on another tab or monitor. The crowd in the main area doesn’t look at all interested in what’s happening onstage and there are very large gaps throughout here, plus changes like fencing layout etc. I can only assume that the earthsat must contain images from various time periods and cannot be a single moment in time. Many other discrepancies between the 2. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Saturday Metaverse |
|
| 35. |
Re: Saturday Metaverse |
Aug 19, 2018, 09:03 |
djinn |
|
|
Red886 wrote on Aug 19, 2018, 08:55:
"fake news" is more about selective reporting, nip-picking facts, deliberate omissions, bias in choice of narrative, lack of critical analysis, mixing of editorials with fact-based news, deliberate misuse of context or the lack of it, and even the choice made to run which news at which hour.
it was not about news where fake numbers or events are made up.
Too many are caught in echo chambers of their own making and are no longer interested in truth - only whatever group think bandwagon makes them feel good. Rationality will only return when people can identify when a lie is a lie, and call it out. Even if it satisfies their bias. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
254 Comments. 13 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ] Older > |
|
Twitter 
