theyarecomingforyou wrote on Jan 13, 2022, 11:11:

asmodeos wrote on Jan 13, 2022, 08:39:
Star Citizen is a pretty epic technological experience. I have a very high end machine and it would be a disservice to not play around with star citizen on it.

A pretty AWFUL technological experience, sure. Even with an RTX 3080, I get framerates in the single digits at Orison and it probably averages about 20fps there.

sc is cpu bound.

1080 with a 3950 cpu beats a 3090 with a 2950 cpu - at 1440p

iirc the renderer is thread limited (2 threads iirc???), and so it heavily depends on raw cpu core performance.

as of a few months ago, when i last checked in on it***

-scheherazade

Dash wrote on Jan 13, 2022, 00:31:

crazedgironemo wrote on Jan 13, 2022, 00:01:

Razumen wrote on Jan 12, 2022, 20:01:

jdreyer wrote on Jan 12, 2022, 19:40:

I think by that time we'll be operating a very large MMORPG

The reason this worked for Blizzard is that they had 10 million or so people paying $15 for WoW. Is SC going to start charging a monthly fee?

Many successful MMOs have operated on the buy once, support through microtransactions model. Many you don't even need to buy.

Is $40,000 still considered a microtransaction? cause the Legatus Pack 2951 costs that much now...

Some people have more money than common sense, I guess.

and the average person seeing a quarter on the ground is like bill gates seeing 50'000 dollars on he ground.

some people just have fuck you money.

-scheherazade

I was gonna say 'maybe marc vanderloo can act?' ... but then i looked him up and saw that his sheppard reference was from when he was much younger, and he doesn't even look like his younger self anymore.

-scheherazade

Greentiger wrote on Nov 4, 2021, 04:34:

Scheherazade wrote on Nov 3, 2021, 23:37:

Greentiger wrote on Nov 3, 2021, 16:45:

Scheherazade wrote on Nov 3, 2021, 14:33:
women are more interested in marrying wealthy men, so of course married men are more likely to be wealthier than unnarried.

the real question is : are married men wealthier than they would have been if these specific men were not married.

You have that whole cause and effect thing backwards

on average, girls like to marry up. thats just part of being human.

i mean, this isn't news to anyone...

-scheherazade

That wasn't the point. You were saying women want wealthy men so married men are wealthier. That's circular logic. And from my experiences, untrue. I believe women want financial stability moreso than just wealth, but of course that's just speculation and painting with generalities.

There are many theories why, but the most compelling I've seen are that married men seem to have a wider range of capability to which women are attracted to.

st Louis fed

"... women want wealthy men so married men are wealthier" is not a loop.
its cause and effect.
men desired more get more "yes".

wealth is a prerequisite for stability.
life requires things, things cost money.

-scheherazade

Greentiger wrote on Nov 3, 2021, 16:45:

Scheherazade wrote on Nov 3, 2021, 14:33:
women are more interested in marrying wealthy men, so of course married men are more likely to be wealthier than unnarried.

the real question is : are married men wealthier than they would have been if these specific men were not married.

You have that whole cause and effect thing backwards

on average, girls like to marry up. thats just part of being human.

i mean, this isn't news to anyone...

-scheherazade

Beamer wrote on Nov 3, 2021, 15:36:
"Everyone stays whole."

Except for the person that sacrifices their career for 10-30 years, prioritizing the other person's, and now is in their 50s with a bad career and nothing because the other partner is too dense to see "ours" from "mine."

When you marry, you're a partnership. Did you buy a house? That's both of your house. Did you buy a car? You both own it. There is no "mine."

There are few marriages, though they're more common, where both are truly equal. One almost always makes major sacrifices for the marriage. It's so weird to me that some of you do not value those sacrifices at all. Then again, as others have said, I'm fairly certain those not valuing them are single men, so...

then dont sacrifice the career and hire a nanny.

and you are ignoring the 10-30 years of effort of the other person paying for that at-home partner.
the privilege of staying home with kids was already compensated.
the privilege of being a stay at home partner without kids is more than already compensated.

not everyone wants to have every personal effort be communal. hence they should not get married.

in any case, divorce exists to terminate relations and become the same as complete strangers. not for one person to be like strangers while the other remains stuck with all their married responsibilities.

-scheherazade

Greentiger wrote on Nov 3, 2021, 04:32:

Scheherazade wrote on Nov 2, 2021, 16:40:

RedEye9 wrote on Nov 2, 2021, 16:34:

Scheherazade wrote on Nov 2, 2021, 16:14:
(...)

How to tell people you're a misogynist without actually telling them you're a misogynist.

stats are stats.

as a man you are more likely than not to get fleeced.

not everyone wants to risk decades of work.

you can live a perfectly happy life with another person, without signing on the dotted line.

and there is no reason for them to demand you sign, unless they have some interest in what that contract affords them.

-scheherazade

If you're that worried about it get a prenuptial, it makes sense regardless.

Married men statistically earn more than single men.

Hawley doesn't know his *** from a hole in the ground.

women are more interested in marrying wealthy men, so of course married men are more likely to be wealthier than unnarried.

the real question is : are married men wealthier than they would have been if these specific men were not married.

in general, they give up opportunities for family.



pre nups are thrown out all the time.
"i didnt know what i was signing"
"my lawyer was not present"
"i didnt have enough time to think it over"
"i felt pressured to sign"
etc.


just avoid the problem entirely. keep your property separate.
keep the relationship /honest/. stay together because you /want to/, not because there are political pressures to stay together or to separate.
everyone stays accountable, they have to be reasonable or the other person can leave - and it isnt one person winning and the other losing should that happen, everyone stays whole.

-scheherazade

Beamer wrote on Nov 2, 2021, 17:45:

Scheherazade wrote on Nov 2, 2021, 17:36:

Beamer wrote on Nov 2, 2021, 17:03:

Scheherazade wrote on Nov 2, 2021, 16:40:

RedEye9 wrote on Nov 2, 2021, 16:34:

Scheherazade wrote on Nov 2, 2021, 16:14:
(...)

How to tell people you're a misogynist without actually telling them you're a misogynist.

stats are stats.

as a man you are more likely than not to get fleeced.

not everyone wants to risk decades of work.

you can live a perfectly happy life with another person, without signing on the dotted line.

and there is no reason for them to demand you sign, unless they have some interest in what that contract affords them.

-scheherazade

Most married men couldn't have earned what they earned without the support of a wife. That's why it works that way.
It's becoming less common, and that's reflected in divorces, but in a traditional family the wife's career takes a backseat to child rearing and household maintenance. In other words, a wife makes career sacrifices for the family much, much more often than the man.

So, in a divorce, why would she not be compensated for those sacrifices?

"Most married men couldn't have earned what they earned without the support of a wife."

This is false.
Most men without family are more free to travel for better opportunities to more rapidly grow their individual career.
Being tied down to "near her family" or "good school zone" is a career growth limitation.

If you want to make the statement that 'the household is wealthier with two perons splitting bills', that would be true.
However the same is true for roommates.
And the same is true for unmarried couples.



Quitting work is a choice. You can also keep working and spend the money to hire a nanny, and keep a more current CV for future employment.
If you /prefer/ to stay home with the kids, thats fine, but it comes with downsides that as an adult you should take responsibility for.

(Aside, child support is separate from alimony and does not require marriage.)




Why not be compensated?
Because men do not keep getting compensated when they quit their job.

And I can make the same statement divorce judges often give to men when men are "owed" alimony : You are an able bodied person and you can take care of yourself. Figure it out.

-scheherazade

No one cares what men "without family" do, as they didn't choose to get married. You do not compare men to what they would be had they chosen not to get married and have a family, as they chose to get married and have a family. They made that decision because they wanted the benefits of it at the time.

But sure. I have a law degree and actually spent 3 years studying why these decisions are made the way they're made, but you read some redpilled article somewhere full of half-truths and misinformation, so feel free to argue with me as if you're an expert.

"You do not compare men to what they would be had they chosen not to get married and have a family, as they chose to get married and have a family. They made that decision because they wanted the benefits of it at the time."

Correct.
Should be the same for women.



Congradulations, you got to learn the written sum of argued human caprice.
Keep in mind that the reasons you studied are based on old timey morality established when women were helpless housewives.
Today they out earn non-legacy men. They don't need the help anymore.



People get divorced nominally to end the marriage, which includes the traditions they established during marriage.
Women get to end their traditions.
Men are obliged to maintain theirs.
Thats the simplest reason to stay unmarried.

-scheherazade

Beamer wrote on Nov 2, 2021, 17:03:

Scheherazade wrote on Nov 2, 2021, 16:40:

RedEye9 wrote on Nov 2, 2021, 16:34:

Scheherazade wrote on Nov 2, 2021, 16:14:
(...)

How to tell people you're a misogynist without actually telling them you're a misogynist.

stats are stats.

as a man you are more likely than not to get fleeced.

not everyone wants to risk decades of work.

you can live a perfectly happy life with another person, without signing on the dotted line.

and there is no reason for them to demand you sign, unless they have some interest in what that contract affords them.

-scheherazade

Most married men couldn't have earned what they earned without the support of a wife. That's why it works that way.
It's becoming less common, and that's reflected in divorces, but in a traditional family the wife's career takes a backseat to child rearing and household maintenance. In other words, a wife makes career sacrifices for the family much, much more often than the man.

So, in a divorce, why would she not be compensated for those sacrifices?

"Most married men couldn't have earned what they earned without the support of a wife."

This is false.
Most men without family are more free to travel for better opportunities to more rapidly grow their individual career.
Being tied down to "near her family" or "good school zone" is a career growth limitation.

If you want to make the statement that 'the household is wealthier with two perons splitting bills', that would be true.
However the same is true for roommates.
And the same is true for unmarried couples.



Quitting work is a choice. You can also keep working and spend the money to hire a nanny, and keep a more current CV for future employment.
If you /prefer/ to stay home with the kids, thats fine, but it comes with downsides that as an adult you should take responsibility for.

(Aside, child support is separate from alimony and does not require marriage.)




Why not be compensated?
Because men do not keep getting compensated when they quit their job.

And I can make the same statement divorce judges often give to men when men are "owed" alimony : You are an able bodied person and you can take care of yourself. Figure it out.

-scheherazade

RedEye9 wrote on Nov 2, 2021, 16:34:

Scheherazade wrote on Nov 2, 2021, 16:14:
(...)

How to tell people you're a misogynist without actually telling them you're a misogynist.

stats are stats.

as a man you are more likely than not to get fleeced.

not everyone wants to risk decades of work.

you can live a perfectly happy life with another person, without signing on the dotted line.

and there is no reason for them to demand you sign, unless they have some interest in what that contract affords them.

-scheherazade

MrBone wrote on Nov 2, 2021, 12:02:
It is nothing to do with "feminism". The no-strings-attached options are plentiful and don't take half your capital if things don't work out.

This.

Fix marriage laws so divorce has everyone leave with what they individually bought.

Then it will be worth risking marriage.

Today's stats are a big warning.
- More than half of marriages end in divorce
- 80% of divorces initiated by women
- Divorcing women when asked to rate their failed marriage 1-10, average a rating of 7 (implying most are simply bored and want something new and exciting)
- Dating site stats show 80% of women message/respond to only the top 20% of men (implying 80% of men get left over or "settled for")
- Asley madison leak showed that most married people looking for sneaky hookups were the wives
- 1/4 of men are still virgins by 30 years of age

Basically, most women find most men undesirable... but are ok with settling at no risk to them, and maybe leaving later with a payout.
IMO, marriage is only an option for broke guys with nothing to lose, or tall handsome popular rich guys that are hard to replace. The rest of dudes should just date, enjoy life, and keep their finances to themselves. And wear a condom of your own provision until you are ready to be a dad.

-scheherazade

This comment was edited on Nov 2, 2021, 16:39.

I have a collection of old pcs, ranging from dos to modern.

I play old stuff on lan sometimes. doom, quake, warcraft2, diablo, wing commander armada, xwing vs tie, magic carpet, mech warrior 2, etc.

In general, all old games with working multiplayer (in original non modified form) use lan multiplayer.

Any that require a 3rd party internet service havent worked for ages.

After the dos and win95 era there came the reliance on internet services for matchmaking. Sometimes for install/authentication. There are games I have discarded because they eventually dont work, even on their original systems.

Diablo 3, diablo2 resurrected, these will end up that way eventually. And good ol original d1/d2 will keep on working.

-scheherazade

ME3 multiplayer was really really really fun.

I played a stupid amount of it, getting 100% of the items at max level, and was able to solo the content at max difficulty.

I would love a local host version to play with the fam.

-scheherazade

jdreyer wrote on May 7, 2021, 06:41:

Scheherazade wrote on May 6, 2021, 20:54:
Been messing around in SC lately, out of being burnt out on flight sims lately.

The game loops that are there are pleasant enough. Open world feels RPG ish, on account of all the traveling you have to do, which is fine. Makes me feel a bit mass-effect-1-ey.

Space combat is simplified from earlier. More aim assist than before on account of turrets now auto aiming for you at your selected target.

In general : Fun enough.

The performance is the only thing holding me back from really digging into it. Framerates are abysmal.

Apparently the game is heavily threaded, and can use a 16 core CPU.
BUT the renderer is only 2 threads, and it is call limited, and it has a lot of calls.

I verified this anecdotally by running the game on my machine (2950x with 3090) and on my partner's machine (5950x and 1080).

It ran about 30% faster on my partner's computer. Not many cases where you can show a 1080 dominating a 3090. So yeah, heavily CPU bound.

Interested to see what happens when their gen12 renderer is released. It's supposed to relieve the CPU bottleneck.

If it does, I'll be playing.

-scheherazade

Progress is good, right?

If you mean that they are making good progress, then maybe.

Definitely adding a lot of shit. So there's that.
I don't really care about a lot of it tho.

I would have preferred (selfishly) to get the space combat out ASAP and just have a point-n-click adventure on the ground a-la Wing Commander Privateer.
Then they could have added FPS later.

I appreciate that adding in FPS later would net a longer development than doing it all at once, on account of refactors happening at a later stage of development where there is simply more to refactor. So as drawn out as it looks already, the final form would have been even more drawn out.

It's just that I don't really care about the final form. I just care about the space combat part.
So in regard to the part I care about (space shit), the progress is glacial.

But, it is what it is. I don't dwell on it. I play 99% flight sims.
I just check back on SC time to time to see how it's coming along.
And it's coming along. 80% of what you need to be off and running is in place.
Just needs a few more game loops closed, renderer performance unbound from the CPU, stability improved, and I'm happy with where it's at.
I suspect this time next year it will be good to go, even if bare bones content scale wise.

-scheherazade

Been messing around in SC lately, out of being burnt out on flight sims lately.

The game loops that are there are pleasant enough. Open world feels RPG ish, on account of all the traveling you have to do, which is fine. Makes me feel a bit mass-effect-1-ey.

Space combat is simplified from earlier. More aim assist than before on account of turrets now auto aiming for you at your selected target.

In general : Fun enough.

The performance is the only thing holding me back from really digging into it. Framerates are abysmal.

Apparently the game is heavily threaded, and can use a 16 core CPU.
BUT the renderer is only 2 threads, and it is call limited, and it has a lot of calls.

I verified this anecdotally by running the game on my machine (2950x with 3090) and on my partner's machine (5950x and 1080).

It ran about 30% faster on my partner's computer. Not many cases where you can show a 1080 dominating a 3090. So yeah, heavily CPU bound.

Interested to see what happens when their gen12 renderer is released. It's supposed to relieve the CPU bottleneck.

If it does, I'll be playing.

-scheherazade

WannaLogAlready wrote on Apr 8, 2021, 13:16:
Very interesting, causes and effects, Scheherazade.

Also, the USA relegated and decimated the native indian people, as did the spanish.

But the Nazis outdid themselves, killing millions of non combatants germans, their own people, from old to children.
And really, did the German populace ignore what was happening, as their jewish/political opponents/homosexual neighbours were denounced and taken away through the years.

Plenty of Filipino towns were culled of their entire population by the U.S.. Along with plenty of rape.

Japanese had to provide comfort women to US troops. (there is even the story of honorable prostitutes volunteering to take the place of school girls that had been put to the role).

China was carved up by force into multiple colonies, with plenty of Chinese fruitlessly dying to keep US/Britain/Russia/France/Japan out.


The ss was far more subtle than that. It was boiling a frog, not a sudden holocaust.

In general it was jews that got the brunt of the oppression. Most undesirable groups felt far more subtle and paced effects. Minorities didn't suffer anything close.

I thought this interview was interesting. Black growing up in nazi germany.
https://youtu.be/Bwz7kQtPPW0

Even the idyllic haplogroup that nazis aspired to wasn't even German. (nominally scandinavian). Ironically, Russians looked more like ideal Germans (more often blonde, blue eye) than Germans did.

In any case, don't mistake my post for a defense or condemnation of any side. I just point out how the world is much more machiavellian and less moralistic than governments tend to advertise to their people.

-scheherazade

NKD wrote on Apr 7, 2021, 15:35:

Cutter wrote on Apr 7, 2021, 15:20:
Same with all the WWII and Vietnam games over the years. One side good, one side bad, when the reality is they're all a bunch of fucking assholes.

Did he... did he really just "both sides" WW2?

You could say German actions were a well deserved revenge for being drawn into ww1 and blamed for a war they didnt start and fleeced to pay reparations for a war they didnt start.

Something overlooked by post war education in allied nations is that the German government kept their sinister side secret, and sold the war by telling Germans that 50'000 ethnic Germans in Poland had been persecuted and driven from their homes for their ethnicity, and that communists were targeting ethnic Germans to take their land and poperty. So Germans at large thought they were going in to help/liberate people from oppression.

Not even the wermacht knew. It wasn't till after the war started and the SS moved in to do cleansings did the wermacht find out. Many leaders lost their positions for refusing to go along with the ss. By the time the war heated up, your choice was 'play along' or 'get shot for treason' (there is a reason officers use pistols not rifles. their job isn't to shoot the enemy, it's to shoot disobedient troops).

When you look back at Hitler's personal history, when he was a regular soldier in ww1... Leading up to the loss of ww1, the German government ran propaganda that blamed their losses on 'jewish traitor indistrialists, making backdoor plans with Germany's enemies to throw the war for future business/trade'. (The war depended on who could throw more artillery shells, so manufacturing was key). You could even blame what he became on the false propaganda he was fed.

You could say japanese actions were to liberate asia from western colonizers. (which is how they themselves marketed the war to their citizens, and technically they did do).

You could also say the allies were opportunistic assholes because they left the bulk of WW2 to Russia (Russia killed 80% of German troops and 75% of German equipment) and ran around the world grabbing colonies, and didn't bother sending troops against Germany proper till Russia was already moving into Germany and the war was almost over.

Also, this was a time when civillians were considered valid military targets - because they supply the military. Annihilating cities was the norm on both sides. You can watch old pathe videos of p47s straffing farmhouses to make sure they have nothing useful left.

Point is, yah, there were no good guys or bad guys. Just some guys worse than the other, depending on if you benefitted or lost from what happened.

p.s. My family was on the receiving side of German fire. In any case, enemies tend to be unreliable sources of info about one another. I think it's better to integrate arguments from all around and cross reference them with timelines of actions to infer the likely scenario.

-scheherazade

This comment was edited on Apr 8, 2021, 12:41.

sounds like they are farming out a combined arms deathmatch mode for the combat sim portion.

You currently can play:
- space fighter deathmatch mode
- first person shooter
- world sandbox mmo

-scheherazade

20H2 here.
Runs fine for me.

I did a format and clean install.
In place upgrades tend to be a dice roll, and I don't need the uncertainty.

-scheherazade

MrBone wrote on Mar 13, 2021, 19:40:

El Pit wrote on Mar 13, 2021, 15:22:

Scheherazade wrote on Mar 13, 2021, 13:03:
Their technology works, just not as well as traditional. Which is fine for a 1.0 of anything.
-scheherazade

And because it worked and could have proved her innocence, her colleagues destroyed the LIS when the investigation wanted to take a look at it? Yes, makes totally sense. Let's see how the court decides, shall we?

Well to your point, she is quite guilty if the multiple articles on her company are accurate. Also, the tech does not even come close to working. 1.0? It isn’t even 0.0001.

That's a bit hyperbolic.

It had something like 50% certainty (meaning 50% of the time the result is definitive, and 50% of the time it may or may not be accurate). Which compares to traditional tests with around 70% certainty. Definately not as good, but close enough to catch up with a few iterations of equipment.

The issue with testing is that it doesn't tell you what you have.
It only tells you if you have what the test is for.
If you want to know what you have without taking wild guesses at it and hoping you do the right test, you simply have to test everything.
But if you test everything you won't have any blood left.
The micro sample testing allows you to literally test for everything without needing to guess your test.
It's a game changer.

Whoever buys the patent after liquidation will make a killing.

-scheherazade