arendjr

@arendjr@programming.dev

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨2³² will get interesting...⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Saying that people are corruptible doesn’t imply they are corrupt. Thankfully we live finite lives and plenty of us can make it to the end before we corrupt ourselves.

  Given the right luck they could only mirror the elite, not change their structure.

  This is quite literally pretending the Age of Enlightenment never existed. We can change structures and have throughout history.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Linux gamers on Steam finally cross over the 3% mark⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  5% at the end of the decade is quite a pessimistic take 😉

  Looking at the graph 1% was crossed mid/late 2021, while 2% was crossed mid 2024, so almost 3 years later. Now 3% is crossed a little more than a year later. Next year we would be likely to have crossed 4% and 5% should be no later than 2027, even if it doesn’t speed up much further.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨But why⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Okay, I’ll spend one last reply on this, because I don’t appreciate getting a strawman assigned to me. I didn’t say getting “every character’s expressed desires being instantly granted” is the main thing making fiction interesting. I said it’s seeing actions play out that you normally don’t is what it makes it interesting. That’s quite a different thing.

  And no, I still don’t think it’s a major plot point. It’s a plot point, yes, but the movies also left it out without real impact to the plot. That’s not a major plot point to me.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨But why⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  that’s a reason to have Beverly suggest it. Not a reason to have it actually happen.

  Sorry, but that’s just silly. If it were brought up as a suggestion that didn’t happen, that would be even weirder than it actually happening. As a writer, you don’t go around finding reasons to block your character’s ideas, because that’s a horribly anti-climactic thing to do, teasing your readers for no purpose, but worst of all, you don’t get to see how the action pans out if it does happen, which is the primary thing that makes fiction interesting to begin with.

  And no, not every action needs foreshadowing either. In the grand scheme of things, this whole scene that people fuss about it isn’t a major plot point in the book. I read the book twice (though even the second time was a while ago), and I had pretty much forgotten about it, until I saw people complaining it. But it still seems as if you think King has some moral obligation to guard and guide the actions of his characters. He doesn’t, and thankfully he doesn’t, because his books are more interesting for it.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨But why⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  As a writer, I disagree. Writers often write thinking from the perspective of their characters. If something makes sense from the character’s perspective, they’ll write it. It’s not an endorsement by the writer, it just makes for a natural and believable and that’s why the book is better for it.

  I can bet you King never decided that he should include such a scene because it would make the book better. He did it because he was writing from her perspective, and it popped into his mind as something that made sense for her to do.

  It’s not a fantasy, not an endorsement, and not a post-rationalisation either. And knowing his writing style, upon reflection he probably felt it belonged for shock value alone. Writers do have a knack for pushing boundaries, and he’s certainly got a taste of it.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Which one and why?⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Silver actually interacts horribly with and ruins the flavour of some foods. There’s a reason why silver cups often have gold plating on the inside to not ruin the taste of wine.

  I’d stick with the steel any time.