damnedfurry
@damnedfurry@lemmy.world
- Comment on PEGI gives Balatro an 18+ rating for gambling imagery 4 days ago:
It’s exactly as long as it needed to be to explain everything it explained, and it is a completely dry comment with no real tone at all, the “rudeness” is of your own invention.
Ironically, “Firstly you could read user names before going off” is by far ruder than anything I wrote. Also, you’re assuming I’m the one who downvoted you–have you considered that maybe your tone earned that from someone else, maybe?
- Comment on PEGI gives Balatro an 18+ rating for gambling imagery 4 days ago:
But it has to be for something. And in Balatro, there simply isn’t any gambling. You never wager anything to win anything based on that wager. All you have are points, and you can neither wager them, nor lose them in any way, chance-based or otherwise.
There is zero gambling in Balatro.
- Comment on PEGI gives Balatro an 18+ rating for gambling imagery 4 days ago:
Minor correction, the three stages in an “ante” are the “blinds”. The game instead uses “stake” to describe its ‘ascension’ system (where going to a higher stake adds difficulty modifiers to the game, for those who don’t know what I mean by that).
- Comment on PEGI gives Balatro an 18+ rating for gambling imagery 4 days ago:
Going off? Yeah, you asked a question, and I answered it. What are you talking about?
- Comment on PEGI gives Balatro an 18+ rating for gambling imagery 4 days ago:
A game just has to show characters gambling for it to be gambling imagery.
Okay. Well, Balatro doesn’t do that–no gambling of any kind happens in the game.
So, what’s your point, exactly?
- Comment on PEGI gives Balatro an 18+ rating for gambling imagery 4 days ago:
“Antes” are what Balatro calls its levels. Each level consists of 3 stages, which the game calls “blinds” (small/big/boss).
In poker, you don’t “beat” an ante, it’s part of what you bet. You also don’t “reach” blinds, nor is there such a thing as a “boss blind” in poker.
So yes, if you’re familiar with poker, that description should make it obvious that the words have different meanings in the game than they do in poker.
The only actual ‘mechanic’ that’s actually the same in Balatro as in poker is what comprises the different hands, and their relative value. And even then, there are also hands in Balatro that don’t exist in poker at all (five of a kind, flush house, etc.).
- Comment on and we thought our thing with beans was bad 4 days ago:
Well, now I feel 20 years older, lol
- Comment on PEGI gives Balatro an 18+ rating for gambling imagery 4 days ago:
Yatzhee is dice.
So is craps, one of the most popular casino games on the planet.
- Comment on PEGI gives Balatro an 18+ rating for gambling imagery 4 days ago:
Also, the simple fact is that there is no reason that any entity promoting their product has to choose any of these platforms over the other–you can just post to all of them, every single one that has enough users to be worth posting to.
- Comment on PEGI gives Balatro an 18+ rating for gambling imagery 4 days ago:
You literally do not make antes in Balatro, in any way.
You should know that you’re talking about before drawing conclusions.
- Comment on Looking for answers 5 days ago:
There is a massive difference between someone who actively fights against their biases and doesn’t let them dictate the conclusions they reach, and is always open to changing those conclusions and their way of thinking as new information comes to their attention, and someone who clings to those biases, and happily ignores anything that may challenge them.
I only define the latter category as “ideologues”. Sure, technically everyone who is sapient has an ideology, but as the definition says:
an adherent of an ideology, especially one who is uncompromising and dogmatic.
I have a feeling you know very well that’s the kind of person I was talking about. And no, not everyone is like that. On Reddit I was once called a “commie” and a “Nazi” on the same day by different people in different subs, lol, both in reaction to being told a fact that contradicted a bias of theirs. Those are the kind of people I’m talking about.
- Comment on Looking for answers 5 days ago:
Lemmy is just slower Reddit. Plenty of ideologues here.
- Comment on Iraq War was preceded by the largest worldwide non-violent protests in history and the war happened anyway. 1 week ago:
FYI, the supposed “Nuclear Gandhi” bug is not a real thing:
- Comment on Iraq War was preceded by the largest worldwide non-violent protests in history and the war happened anyway. 1 week ago:
This is a myth, no such bug ever existed. There’s a whole Wikipedia page about it:
- Comment on Under Trump will anything happen to my brothers Social Security Disability? He is 42 and draws it for mental illness. 3 weeks ago:
Dogecoin is also not his. It came into existence in 2013. Elon’s first tweet about it was in 2020.
If anything, you could reasonably argue that both that department name and his interest in that particular cryptocurrency are based on his affinity for the same original meme. But neither the meme nor the currency belong to him.
- Comment on Under Trump will anything happen to my brothers Social Security Disability? He is 42 and draws it for mental illness. 3 weeks ago:
named after the cryptoscam
“doge” became a meme in 2010, long before cryptocurrency was a thing the mainstream were even aware of, let alone the one named after it.
- Comment on We were there monkeys all along 4 weeks ago:
How mad you are is 10x funnier than the OOP, lol.
- Comment on We were there monkeys all along 4 weeks ago:
I am, because my jokes are actually good, lol.
- Comment on We were there monkeys all along 4 weeks ago:
Struck a nerve, huh?
It’s like writing a joke based on the premise that exercise makes you gain weight. It doesn’t, so any joke based on that is going to fall flat, except for people who think it does, lol.
- Comment on We were there monkeys all along 4 weeks ago:
The premise of the analogy is that the typed characters are random, which is why the animal in it is one that doesn’t understand written English.
OOP doesn’t get it.
- Comment on Anon doesn't tip 1 month ago:
They’re not employed by me. Wages are between them and their boss. Any extra from anywhere else is a favor and not to be expected.
Hope that helps.
- Comment on anon working as behaviour interventionist 1 month ago:
And which orifice did you pass this take from, exactly?
- Comment on Star Citizen Expose Paints a Fairly Bleak Picture: 'There's No Actual Focus on Getting the Game Done' 1 month ago:
That’s the majority of them, but ragebait articles aren’t written about them, so you have no idea who they are.
Don’t be so easily manipulated by media.
- Comment on Just a reminder... 2 months ago:
Short answer is: to incentivize investment/entrepreneurship etc., which is good for the economy as a whole.
- Comment on Just a reminder... 2 months ago:
I realize that, and mainly considered the bottom of the range as a result; $18 is still a far cry from $12, after all.
- Comment on Just a reminder... 2 months ago:
Okay, but the point is - more bro.
And my point is that without even being able to say how much more, not only do you know when you’ve reached the goal, but to opponents you come off as greedy and entitled with “I don’t know, just gimme more bro”.
That shit is just not going to work, ever.
- Comment on Just a reminder... 2 months ago:
Okay, let’s see what we’ve got here.
Assuming 1 childless worker, got a list of things here (would like to know more about how these numbers were arrived at, but I’ll take them at their word).
Food, medical, housing, transportation, civic (apparently this is recreation etc.) Internet/mobile, and “other” (saving?)
I looked up an area near me. They give annual values, but I, like most Americans I imagine, can relate more easily to monthly costs, so divided everything by 12. So here’s what MIT says a “living wage” should pay for, per month:
Food: $406. That seems like a LOT for a single adult. My roommate and I spend less than this for the both of us and we buy groceries together, so I know how much our combined cost is.
Medical: $276. Can’t really comment in either direction about this, fact is that medical costs vary SO much from person to person, and even for the same person at different stages of life, that I’ll just give the benefit of the doubt that that’s the correct cost on average.
Housing: $1615. My rent is less than this, even if you don’t consider that it’s half of what it would be if I lived alone. I could see this being more or less accurate for my area for someone just moving in someplace.
Transportation: $897. What the fuck? If you have shitty credit AND you financed an expensive car for a shitty rate, then maybe, but NOBODY should be paying anything close to this a month for a car, even if you get gas weekly.
Civic: $251. That’s significant, $60+ every week? Doing what?
Internet/mobile: $117. That sounds fine, assuming middle of the road Internet and standard mobile plan.
Other: $368. What can you really say about “other”?
So, other than a few of those categories being WAY out of proportion imo, the biggest issue I see here is that MIT is giving different, separate “living wages” for 3 categories of people (1 alone, 2 with 1 working, and 2 with both working (why isn’t this just the first category doubled?)), and for 0 to 3 children. So, some issues I’m seeing:
-
It’s one thing to force a company to pay a worker more if they have a kid(s), and/or live with someone who doesn’t work, but you can’t force a company to hire these people. Considering that the value of the labor itself does not increase, this seems like it’d obviously create massive incentive against hiring anyone other than single childless individuals.
-
Typically an employer is not even entitled to know such personal details about a worker/applicant in the first place. But if we put these into effect, they would have to, in order to know which category you fall into, which leads back into 1 above
-
There is a LOT of work that does not generate nearly that amount of value (in the case above, around $27/hour assuming 40hr work week) for the business, but are things the business can’t function without. It’s easy to say “if you can’t afford to pay every single one of these positions this living wage, then you can’t afford to be in business”, but the fact is that this would place huge obstacles in the way of a small business getting up and running to any real degree. Megacorporations have pockets deep enough to eat the cost though, and so they’ll become even better at driving small business to extinction than they already are, and hasten us toward a society where they’re the only real game in town. And I shouldn’t have to list the reasons that an ‘employer monopoly’ is a REALLY bad state of affairs for the working population.
“Just increase the minimum wage to a living wage” is not the ‘duh, just do it’ solution many claim it to be.
-
- Comment on Just a reminder... 2 months ago:
The classic definition is the wage needed to cover the basic needs of the family including things like rent
Rent where? Rent costs vary wildly.
childcare
What sort of childcare, and how many children is it meant to support? Or do you get $X per child? And if so, is there a maximum number of children, where having more won’t get you more money?
transportation
Over what distance? And how, owned vehicle or public transportation? If owned vehicle, what kind of vehicle? Used/new? Price ranges for vehicles also vary wildly.
I would go one further and say that the family needs to not be living paycheque to paycheque.
That entails what amount of extra money? And what do you do about people who willfully choose to spend it instead of saving it? Are you aware that in the US, 1 in 4 of people earning $150k or more live paycheck to paycheck? Just because one has money to save doesn’t mean they’re going to do it.
go out once in a while
Again, far too vague. How often? And how much money does ‘going out’ cost? You’d have to figure both of those out, and multiply them by each other, to ensure this goal is met.
educate their children
Taxpayer-funded public school already covers this. Unless you feel everyone should be entitled to the cost of private schooling?
save and pay for university
University tuition is another massive variable, so you’d need to decide how much is given for tuition. Also, if someone does not go to college, do they not get that part of the money?
and advance themselves.
The vaguest criterion yet. It’s pretty much impossible to say if a given minimum wage satisfies ‘everyone can advance themselves’.
As anyone can see, this “classic” definition is still full of major holes, and not nearly complete enough to even conceptualize a goal such that progress toward it can even be measured. Just saying “living wage” over and over will never get anyone anywhere.
- Comment on Just a reminder... 2 months ago:
Student loan forgiveness is regressive by definition (those lucky enough to go to college are a minority that earns on average $0.5 to $1 million more over their lifetimes, than those who don’t), aren’t you against wealth transfers from poorer to richer?
- Comment on Just a reminder... 2 months ago:
There should be no profits, no bonuses, and no dividends until every worker (not employee, it doesn’t matter what your relationship with the company is if they benefit from your labour) is making at least a living wage with full benefits.
To get anywhere, you must define “living wage” concretely. You can use variables of course, but without at least a ‘formula’, “living wage” is just a meaningless, unachievable talking point. You at least have to know what you’re aiming at, to have any hope of achieving it–you’ll never get anywhere just saying “living wage”, because ‘enough to live on’ does not nearly have the same definition for everyone. So, what’s the baseline, in your view?
Example: ‘the living wage should be enough money to afford [list of things] with $X leftover for discretionary spending/saving.’