RedEye9 wrote on Oct 2, 2020, 23:48:
Superspreader events surround the dotus, including last week's scotus announcement.
The maskless gathering has now claimed Notre Dame’s president and Kelly Anne CONway can now count herself blessed as she too has tested positive for the tRump virus.
The iq test continues.
RedEye9 wrote on Oct 2, 2020, 21:42:Acleacius wrote on Oct 2, 2020, 21:29:It has NEVER won a Nobel anything and it NEVER will.
In case he doesn't come back, I'm just glad he was able to win 2 noble peace prizes before he leaves us.
RedEye9 wrote on Sep 28, 2020, 20:40:To be fair, I bet even more only get it from late night TV comedy shows, so you're more like the 15%. Additionally, depending on the specific source you're talking about, some youtube content provides an even more detailed analysis of stories that only get 10-15 seconds of air time on the national networks or a small blurb in the news articles. It's up to the viewer to analyze bias and sources, but it's not like you don't have to do that already for just about any other place you read or see a news story these days.
Proud to be in the 74%.
TheBigVlad wrote on Sep 21, 2020, 10:38:
Hopefully this will bring some much needed quality control to Bethesda's games. Also, Microsoft, please force Bethesda to use a new engine for future Fallout/ES games. It's time to retire Gamebryo. I really don't see a downside to this news.
Beamer wrote on Sep 20, 2020, 10:58:
Anyone that thinks millennials have the same opportunities boomers do either doesn't know history, or simply hasn't looked at any kind of chart of wealth or income.
It's a ludicrous claim.
Furthermore, the 30s and 40s aren't boomers. Think 70s and 80s. I generally find the best way to describe it is that six figure salaries are as big a deal today as in the 80s, when every 80s business movie was about getting to 6 figures. A six figure salary in the 80s is roughly $300k today. How many people do you know making $300k? At my company, which is a major publicly traded company, it's less than 1%.
Far more Boomers made six figures than GenX and Millennials make $300k.
NKD wrote on Sep 20, 2020, 09:44:
White people, using violence and slavery to get ahead, and then once they've got a comfortable lead, wanting to make sure everyone is now "equal" and the world is "colour-blind" (so that they can never lose their lead.)
In other words, cheating at the game, apologizing and promising to play fair, but then wanting to keep the points you stole instead of giving a few up to the people you robbed.
It's the same as the baby boomers using up all the advantages their predecessors left them and then pulling the ladder up behind them so the Gen Xers and Millennials can spend their lives in debt and never owning anything. Strong correlation between boomers and white fragility.
Nucas wrote on Sep 18, 2020, 21:38:
there's the arms race argument about the supreme court and subsequent presidencies but its not like there's anything to lose at this point. if significant action on climate change isn't taken in the next few years we're probably not even getting full lives, who gives a fuck about the supreme court.
it's a pipe dream regardless.
Orogogus wrote on Sep 18, 2020, 12:12:
I mean, why is English taught in so many countries, including China? It's not because they were all conquered. The argument for everyone speaking Chinese would be that China would take up the mantle of the world's leading economy, making Chinese the lingua franca of commerce.
I think there are serious barriers to learning pictogram-based languages like Chinese or Japanese that don't exist for Western languages, though.
Where do you see a history of the Chinese culture reaching out to control as much as possible? A lot of their history is isolationist and xenophobic, and being beaten up and exploited by the Mongols, the Western powers and the Japanese. The situations in Tibet, Xinjiang, Taiwan and the "South China Sea" might not be great, but there's a huge gulf between that and say, Britain taking India, or the Mongol Empire.
RedEye9 wrote on Sep 17, 2020, 22:10:
The instant the United States defaults on one cent of debt it legally owes will be the beginning of the end of America as we know it.
Any person even thinking it would be "cool" should immediately start taking chinese language lessons.
Beamer wrote on Jul 9, 2020, 10:01:Julian Delphiki wrote on Jul 9, 2020, 09:52:
"You're being radicalized" is hysterical.
Listen, we're talking about the Redskins in this thread. Is there a single reason why anyone would want the name to remain what is objectively a slur other than "that's the way it's always been done?"
And can you find many non-conservatives that don't think the name should be changed?
What if we extend this out to taking down statues of Confederate leaders? What if we go back far enough to wanting to allow interracial marriage?
I can take it back to "socially conservative," which is what I meant, and is generally what "conservative" means in this country, as you don't find too many political platforms aimed around fiscal conservatism, nor do you find anyone frequently discussing it. And you don't find too many leaders of large organizations that are socially conservative.
Your logic is all over the place in this discussion. First you made general comments about conservatives as a group and use a straw man argument blanketing all conservatives as never wanting to seek improvement. Then you postulate that they are all afraid and hiding in their mediocrity. You finally conclude that in an office environment, they must be always getting passed up for promotions, inferring there is a level of ineptness applying only to the conservative. Your statements have absolutely nothing to do with the Washington Redskins and everything to do with attacking your 'conservative' class of people which you did not elaborate on at all. It was simply a judgmental rant based on false assumptions and incorrect facts. In this very reply you argue you're talking about the Washington Redskins, yet in the very next paragraph shift to statues and interracial marriage. Which is it?
The fact you find my statement about radicalization hysterical only reinforces my argument. If your mind is already filtering out discussions to the point where you don't take other possibilities seriously how can you claim to be open to diverse thoughts and opinions? That is more typical of people who have been told what to think and not how to think.
Complex discussions like this are not meant for forums and social media or media in general. You need to talk to people face-to-face to really empathize and understand the other true arguments (not the straw man arguments always referenced in media) so you can make an intelligent decision for yourself and learn something new about the other party.
My only other recommendation for you is to be cautious using a modern lens to judge history lest you be judged yourself by your children and their children in the same fashion. It's easy for us to do that, but take the time to put yourself in their shoes at that point in history with the upbringing they themselves had and imagine what was going through their head with regard to a very specific decision that was made. Don't use generalities, focus on specific decision points. I believe you will learn a lot if you take that approach and use it throughout your life.
Beamer wrote on Jul 9, 2020, 09:37:
"Conservative" really is the right term. It's amazing how against change they are. They think the way things have always been done is fine and good, and there's no reason to ever improve.
Or, perhaps, they believe that the way things are currently done hides their mediocrity, and are afraid that changing to a more level playing field will reveal how mediocre they are.
In any case, whenever there's discussion of change, they hate it. Everything is best the way they know it to be, and updating anything based upon improved understanding is wrong and immoral. I just imagine them in office jobs, constantly getting passed up for promotion, wondering why, but any time someone wants to improve something they chirp up with "but that's not how we do it!"
DukeFNukem wrote on Jun 2, 2020, 21:23:That is why identity politics are ultimately untenable and self-defeating. A society dominated by a victim mentality cannot be sustained. While its citizens may feel comforted by laws that protect their feelings and by the belief that they bear no responsibility for any of their circumstances, all core motivations necessary for achieving actual success are significantly eroded. Competition to become successful is mutated into a battle of determining who was victimized the most and eventually, the remaining hard working individuals contributing to society give up and do the same.
This just seems weird to me. ALL LIVES MATTER!
Stop dividing people through race. Give that 1 million dollars to POOR people, not black, not white, not asian, not chinese, not the green martians. Give it to underpriviledged POOR people.
VaranDragon wrote on Dec 10, 2019, 03:17:bigspender wrote on Dec 9, 2019, 16:47:VaranDragon wrote on Dec 9, 2019, 15:08:
An SSD is required as a minimum? Is that a first? Does not bode well for loading times.
Most likely this is for textures and models being loaded in on the fly. Otherwise you might get blurry textures on the terrain if they can't load in fast enough or micro stutter as models load in dynamically
Bullshit. Thats just lazy programming. Many older games have had problems with microstuttering. If the solution is to get faster hardware instead of properly coding your memory management then thats all that is.
MeanJim wrote on Oct 31, 2019, 19:48:saluk wrote on Oct 31, 2019, 16:22:phinn wrote on Oct 31, 2019, 16:13:
Really don't understand why everyone throws a fit anytime something new comes out. Steam was and still is in need of a modern UI. This is a nice step forward, no complaints.
Modern UI design is terrible. It intentionally sacrifices usability, efficiency, and discoverability to optimize for engagement. A decade of making computing technology worse so that consumers look at the screen longer and click on more ads.
Pretty much what he said. I use Steam to launch games. That's it. The new UI has made it worse to do that one thing, all just to throw crap in my face that I don't want or need to see. Any other Steam related things like browsing/buying games, I do in my web browser anyway. The new UI presents less information and yet somehow takes up more room. I'm not against a new UI if it's better than what it's replacing. This new UI, while it has a few long request features, overall it is not better and has taken options away from those of us that prefer a minimal UI (small mode) and being able switch the library view to a list in full mode instead of giant boxes/icons.
The GOG Galaxy beta 2.0 client is an improvement over the old client. It kept the features of the old client that people like, big box icons like a shelf, but added the ability to use a minimal list view. Steam has done the opposite, removed the minimal list modes and replaced it with only the large boxy icon views.
Creston wrote on Oct 29, 2019, 21:10:Simon Says wrote on Oct 29, 2019, 18:06:
Mind you, if the rumors about another 5 years before getting into beta are true
Here's the thing, they somehow keep getting 2+ million dollars each month for essentially doing very little to no work. I mean, supposedly they have 500 people working there, what they've got to show for 7 years of that many people working has to be the biggest laughing stock in the industry.
But they keep getting paid for doing nothing, because there is no publisher to fire their asses.
So why would they ever release a full product? Once they do that, they get a bit more money from sales from people who refused to back, but after that the gravy train will start to wind down. So why would they ever do that?
Star Citizen is the biggest privatized social welfare fund ever seen. The subtitle of the 'game' should be "How people around the world kept giving 500 guys money to just fuck around, year after year after year."
1badmf wrote on Aug 22, 2018, 00:20:Creston wrote on Aug 21, 2018, 23:13:Cutter wrote on Aug 21, 2018, 20:59:
no jobs. No money. No way or need to buy goods from the robots that took the jobs is there? Massive numbers of unemployed, homeless, and hungry people? Gee, what's the worst that could happen?
The rich don't care. They really would much rather all the poor (ie, everyone with less than a million dollars) just die off, so the planet doesn't go to shit so quickly.
you know i don't doubt for a second that trump and his ilk see everyone below the upper class as a necessary evil to toil in their factories but can otherwise fuck off and die.
NKD wrote on Aug 18, 2018, 17:35:Julian Delphiki wrote on Aug 18, 2018, 17:27:
How many times have you heard someone label a conservative as a Nazi since Trump was elected? How many times did you hear it when Bush was in office? It's a safe bet that the first number is much larger than the last.
Oh absolutely. But Bush didn't run on a populist anti-immigration platform, pander to ethnonationalists, or say any of the things Trump says. While there are definitely people who overreact to things, let's not normalize everything Trump does by just pretending every Republican is going to get the same treatment.
I'm a very outspoken Trump critic, but only a small amount of what I say would apply to a Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney or even a Ted "Zodiac Killer" Cruz.
NKD wrote on Aug 18, 2018, 17:25:Julian Delphiki wrote on Aug 18, 2018, 17:20:Rilcon wrote on Aug 18, 2018, 16:42:
Berated "conservatives" could do what their precious ethos demands, start a new social media platform and compete on the free and open market without all the evil regulations.
Sarcasm aside, competition only works in an environment where there is not a monopoly on the service being challenged. Since there is no regulation on this form of communication at this point in time, there is no way for any new company to actually gain meaningful ground. I'm quite surprised that the government that shut down AT&T and forced it to split up decades ago has allowed a new form of communication that is even more influential to grow unchecked to where it is today. Imagine, for example, that in the 1980s/90s AT&T told some group of people that they were not going to allow them to make calls anymore because the company didn't agree with what they were saying on those calls. It's an equivalent analogy to what is happening now and without any kind of regulation on that form of communication it stifles opposing views and fosters indoctrination.
I'm not seeing much of a push to break up monopolies coming from the conservatives. Conservatives were pushing for the Tribune/Sinclair merger, because that monopoly would have worked in their favor.
NKD wrote on Aug 18, 2018, 17:18:
These "Conservative voices" wouldn't even have a voice if it weren't for social media amplifying their bullshit. Fake ass conservative propaganda floating around Facebook alone probably causes a ton of problems.
Prior to the social media era, these people wouldn't have found anywhere to put their shit that anyone would see it. Complaining about being "censored" by social media when in fact they are the ones responsible for your success, seems really fucking bizarre. Yeah, they are going to draw some lines somewhere, but they are still giving way more of a voice to fringe lunatics than they would have otherwise.