WoodScientist
@WoodScientist@lemmy.world
- Comment on Why is the US so into Israel? 2 weeks ago:
You can define things however you want, but words do have meaning. Conquest implies direct political control over a place.
- Comment on Why is the US so into Israel? 2 weeks ago:
Eh. The US really has no interest in actually conquering the Middle East. Outside the main US territories, the US is a trade empire, not a settler one. The US is never going to try and annex territory in the Middle East and make it a state. The US just wants to make sure the oil keeps coming out of the ground and that it keeps getting exported at an affordable cost. It’s primary goal is to prevent Middle East nations from using their oil for political leverage or for purposes other than export. It would have made a lot of sense economically for a country like Saudi Arabia to not get into the oil export business. Instead, they could have kept their oil domestic, built up a supply chain of value-add products, and export those. Instead of exporting raw oil, they could mainly export plastics, highly refined fuels, and the things made from plastics. But the West wants cheap energy, and they want the higher places on the supply chain.
It’s ultimately all about the oil. The day the oil runs out or the day oil is no longer needed, Israel will be abandoned and left to its own devices.
- Comment on Not a good sign 2 weeks ago:
…Yeah…
- Comment on Why is society at large okay with euthanasia for pets but not for humans? 2 weeks ago:
Much of it comes from Christian theology.
Suicide has long been considered one of, if not the, worst possible sins in Christianity. At least in the Catholic tradition, sins can be forgiven by confessing your sins to a priest and having them absolved. But you can’t do this with suicide. Per Christian theology, even a murderer or child molester can some day repent, beg forgiveness, and be forgiven of their sins. They won’t be absolved from the earthly consequences of their actions, but they’ll be forgiven in the next life. That is a core message of Christianity - no actions are truly irredeemable as long as you still draw breath.
But with suicide, this isn’t possible. You can’t confess your sins after you’re dead, and suicide means that your last act on Earth will be a mortal sin. I suppose you could maybe do confession along with assisted suicide. Maybe you have a priest on hand, swallow the poison, and then immediately confess your sin. But most religious scholars would likely argue that doesn’t work. Your contrition has to be genuine for it to count.
Anyway, pardon the digression. But this really is the root of it. Even in modern Western societies. Even among people who aren’t themselves active Christians. Even among those who’ve never stepped inside a church. Secular Western society is still heavily influenced by Christian philosophy. A strong aversion to suicide in any form is a part of this. For most Christians, voluntarily signing up for euthanasia is the easiest direct path to eternal damnation that one can achieve. The only quicker more direct way would be a murder-suicide. We’ve never had that same worry with animals. Christian theology doesn’t assign souls to animals. And even if it did, they would have no moral blame for us choosing to put them down.
- Comment on [insert title card] 2 weeks ago:
I mean…do all Namekians look alike to you?
- Comment on Man on a mission 2 weeks ago:
Like that child molesting robot Dwayne 'the Rock" Johnson built!
- Comment on Man on a mission 2 weeks ago:
Man, it would be really hilarious if someone named “mechoman” got raped by an out of control robot. That would be fucking hilarious.
- Comment on I would watch that ngl 3 weeks ago:
Well, you’re an illegal driver.
- Comment on I would watch that ngl 3 weeks ago:
Yeah, the only actual crime is sneaking across the border. But most people here “illegally” didn’t even do that. Most undocumented immigrants didn’t pay some coyote to sneak them across the US-Mexican border. Most come here completely legally through ordinary travel options and overstay their visas.
- Comment on English has too many words for animals 4 weeks ago:
How about “dry shelly boys” and “wet shelly boys?”
- Comment on English has too many words for animals 4 weeks ago:
Not to be confused with the rare tortups, which spends nearly their entire life in flight.
- Comment on English has too many words for animals 4 weeks ago:
This title sentence works multiple ways. My cat is unable to speak English, because it has far too many words beyond the word meow.
- Comment on weekend plans 4 weeks ago:
Like showing up at an airport with no luggage and a wallet full of cash, demanding a same-day one-way flight to Tehran.
- Comment on Left side park 4 weeks ago:
Well, you just going to sit there complaining? Or are we going to do something? Grab a shovel and a plasma cutter, we have buildings to move!
- Comment on Some things were better in the good old days 4 weeks ago:
You can still buy those expensive appliances. The brands exist. Just be prepared to pay the prices your grandparents paid.
- Comment on Some things were better in the good old days 4 weeks ago:
Eh. It made more sense hundreds of years ago for people to build houses that lasted for centuries. That kind of construction makes sense in periods of slow technological and social change.
But think of how differently people live now vs just a hundred years ago. Imagine buying a house without running water, electric wiring, or insulation. Sure, old homes can be renovated to have these. But that requires tearing the thing down to the bare stone or wood walls and starting from scratch. You have to gut the entire building. The only thing that remains is the shell, a shell which represents only 20% of the cost of the building, if that. Most of the cost of a building is not in the structure itself, yet that’s the only part that gets saved in a complete gutting and renovation.
If you build a house today that lasts centuries, the only way that house will still be occupied 300 years from now is if it’s been gutted down to the studs multiple times over the generations. And at that point, why build an ultra-durable house in the first place? Why not build something lighter that requires fewer resources up front, and can simply be recycled once it’s become obsolete?
- Comment on The incredible transformation 4 weeks ago:
Well, you see, the gravity is very strong in Denmark. This causes a high amount of time dilation. This causes clocks in Denmark to move substantially slower than those in the rest of the world. He’s experienced 20 years. She’s only experienced about 2.
- Comment on I poured milk on my pussy but it didn't help 4 weeks ago:
FUUUUCK.
I can feel this one.
- Comment on holy moley 4 weeks ago:
Mater tua.
- Comment on "Any update is a bonus not a right": Peak co-developer Landfall reminds impatient fans it's not a live-service studio 5 weeks ago:
Sure. But the point is they viewed those updates as an obligation, not a bonus. I view those first updates as an obligation - merely delivering the core features promised. But anything beyond that is a bonus.
- Comment on "Any update is a bonus not a right": Peak co-developer Landfall reminds impatient fans it's not a live-service studio 5 weeks ago:
Games are also just released in a poorer state now than they were in the past. Consider the extreme - old school console games. Anything from the pre-Dreamcast era couldn’t ever receive updates. The Dreamcast was the first console to have internet access built in. Hell, millions of people played computer games without having an internet connection. In that era, you could never update your game, except for going to new release versions. You could fix bugs in your new cartridges, but once an NES game was sold and out in the world, that was it.
But over time, it’s now become safe for publishers to assume their customers have internet access. Net access has become so ubiquitous that it can safely be assumed that anyone with enough money for a gaming console also has money for at least a cheap internet connection. What few exceptions to this exist are so small in number publishers can just ignore them.
Internet updates started as something rare. But they became the norm. And then the expectation. And finally the default assumption. Companies have since found that they can outsource a lot of their bug testing to their customers. Why spend money hiring hundreds of play testers to explore every nook, cranny, and odd game path, trying to root out every bug? Why not instead do just enough to make sure the game is decently playable? You pay for a small amount of bug testing. Then you sell your game to thousands or millions of people, and your customers do your bug testing for you!
Even better, you can value-engineer bugs now! In the past, you had to be incredibly thorough. Your testers couldn’t know how often a given bug or exploit would be encountered by the average player. They were trying to find everything. But with modern analytics, you can take a bastard bean-counter’s approach to bug fixing. Everything players do is tracked. So when people report bugs, analyze what portion of play throughs will ever encounter that bug. If it’s rare enough to not likely deter sales, then don’t bother spending money to fix it. This is how known bugs go unfixed for years. The question is not, “is there a bug?” The question is, “is there a sales-relevant bug?”
In short, people now expect updates a lot more because games simply aren’t built like they used to be. Sure, buggy games always existed. Fly-by-night operators would make buggy shovelware and sell it to unsuspecting grandmas. But games from reputable publishers were thoroughly tested and debugged, as an internet-connected customer could not be assumed. Now, games at launch have become bug-filled messes. And they’re often shipped without their advertised and intended features fully implemented yet. And we’ve just become accustomed to this. We’ve learned to tolerate developer laziness. But in turn, we also expect updates to polish these turds on the backend.
- Comment on "Any update is a bonus not a right": Peak co-developer Landfall reminds impatient fans it's not a live-service studio 5 weeks ago:
I would say it depends on the update. Bug fixes and things that should have reasonably been included in the original game? That’s a right. New content, new items, new bosses, new features that redefine gameplay, etc? That’s a bonus.
Like, let’s say there’s a feature that was shown in advertisements but wasn’t quite ready for the launch date. That’s an obligation; the company simply being expected to deliver what it promised. Some people likely bought the game contingent on knowing those features are on the way. I myself bought Kerbal Space Program 2. I loved the original and really wanted to help them continue their work. Hell, I met most of their dev team at a game con. But when I bought the game, I bought it not because of its features at launch, but because of all the features they were promising to implement. I feel really cheated after they shut it down before the game was finished. Sure, they delivered a nominally functional game, but it didn’t even match the scope of KSP1, let alone all the advertised features. And the thing is still a buggy mess. I do consider it an obligation to deliver on features you’ve promised. It’s also an obligation to deliver a game that is reasonably functional and free of bugs.
Compare KSP 2 to two other games I’ve played, No Man’s Sky and Satisfactory. Those games not only delivered on their original promises, but have kept making new content for years after they delivered what they promised. Any new features on these games are something I consider a bonus, something I’m joyful to receive, not something I feel obligated to receive.
- Comment on 5 weeks ago:
I’m struggling to think of a situation where having cameras will help you, the homeowner, with insurance claims. Let’s say someone fakes a slip and fall on the sidewalk out front of your house. Sure, your camera may prove they faked it. However, you’re not going to be the one actually paying that claim. Beyond the deductible, it won’t actually keep money from leaving your pocket.
But there are plenty of cases where having a camera could result in the denial of a claim. Introducing video of yourself to an insurance claim opens up a can of worms of intentionality, negligence, and liability. And insurers will look for any flimsy excuse to rule a claim is not covered.
At best, having cameras lets you avoid an insurance deductible from someone filing a fraudulent claim against you. But on the downside, it may result in entire claims being denied that you would otherwise have coverage for.
- Comment on California father arrested after repainting crosswalk, adding stop signs near children’s park 5 weeks ago:
I want to get together with my neighbor across the street and put a toll booth in front of my house. I live at the entrance to a cul-de-sac.
- Comment on Turbine go brrrr 5 weeks ago:
- Comment on it's literally zero 1 month ago:
WELCOME TO THE INFORMATION SUPERHIGHWAY!!!
- Comment on Guys did I do it right 1 month ago:
It’s not about saving money. It’s about sending a message!
- Comment on Guys did I do it right 1 month ago:
I want to park a shipping container in an on-street parking space and use that instead of renting a storage unit. If we’re OK with people storing their crap on public property, why should it be limited to cars?
- Comment on Asked LA Fitness to cancel my membership, they offered to freeze it for $10/month instead 1 month ago:
You’ll never see a real courtroom. Instead you’ll only have access to a kangaroo fake court with a fake judge chosen by the company.
- Comment on Sooo... What's Mike Pillow up to these days? 1 month ago:
“Well Mike, it seems that you’re MY pillow now…”