fishos
@fishos@lemmy.world
- Comment on Resources 12 minutes ago:
Absolutely.
Also, whenever I see “humans only really need X” I always think of Bill Gates saying no one will ever need more than 640kb of RAM. Sure, today no one will, but tomorrow someone who was held back by that previous number will see the new number and be able to complete a new task and suddenly that will be the new “baseline”. A 1.4mb floppy used to store dozens/hundreds of text files. Now a .jpeg takes up more space. You can’t just settle on some number without commiting to becoming left behind as things progress.
- Comment on Resources 4 hours ago:
Someone else posted what it means. It means 10m² living space per person, 4 people share 20m² for bathroom and kitchen, you don’t eat meat, you wash tops every ~3 days and bottoms every ~14 days(laundry is shared with ~20 people). Something like 4 people are expected to share a laptop with specs that were cutting edge 15 years ago.
It is a MAJOR downgrade from how most people live, even those in poverty, and is just not appealing to all but the most minimalist of people.
- Comment on Why doesn't the Trump administration simply edit the Epstein files and release them? 1 week ago:
Something I didn’t see mentioned: say you make a fakenlist, redacting the people you want to protect. What about the people you are now throwing under the bus? First your fake evidence has to make it past all of their lawyers scrutiny and hope you’re not revealed for your con, and then you have to hope that these people don’t have evidence that they can use to throw you under the bus as well. Releasing anyone’s name is likely to cause many more names to come out and the domino effect is way too unpredictable. It’s truly some mutually assured destruction.
- Comment on >:( 3 weeks ago:
Yes, and I’m here criticizing “actually existing science”. That’s exactly my point. It’s not “real science” when it’s injected with politics and emotions like that. It’s biased in a way science shouldn’t be.
- Comment on >:( 3 weeks ago:
Wtf are you going on about? I’m talking about changing the name of a plant because it’s discoverer was a racist. Nothing about politicians or pedophiles. Ffs, some of you have brain rot as bad as the MAGA. I’m literally saying that history should remain accurate and not try to whitewash away the negatives.
- Comment on >:( 3 weeks ago:
I think you’re confusing “politics injected into science” with science. Science is data and analyzing it. Pretending someone didn’t invent something is removing data points and I’m pretty sure science calls that fraud, just like we call the studies that found cigarettes healthy to be frauds, or the oil companies to be frauds. 2 wrongs don’t make a right.
- Comment on >:( 3 weeks ago:
Remember, it’s only revisionist history if it’s the history you don’t like.
- Comment on >:( 3 weeks ago:
“unless you’re a part of the community fuck you”
I can see why it got heated…
- Comment on >:( 3 weeks ago:
Wasn’t this more about taking away the names from a bunch of people who in hindsight were terrible people? I remember something awhile back about people getting upset because some groups had decided that if you had a shred of negativity in your past, you weren’t allowed to discover and name things. I believe they were trying to change a bunch of names “to not honor the original person”.
That didn’t feel like science so much as politics and I get why some would be against that.
- Comment on make fantasy great again! 4 weeks ago:
And I’d do it again you fucking neckbeard. I don’t owe you shit. Don’t start a conversation trying to be a know it all douche and you wouldnt get treated like a know it all douche.
Now, you have 2 choices: you can stay here and keep responding and prove you’re a retarded troll…
Or you can fuck off. I think I already made it pretty clear that I value your opinion lower than pond scum, so what are you hoping to accomplish?
But go ahead, maybe next time I’ll have AI write my insults for me. You can choke on that slop.
- Comment on make fantasy great again! 4 weeks ago:
If I had said I searched it it wouldn’t be any different.
Get off your high horse and honestly, fuck you. You’re just a troll.
My comment also asked for the title and actually got that as a response.
All you’ve done is shit everywhere and show what a collassal jackass you are. Read the room. No one gives a shit. We’re talking about the game and you’re going off on some stupid half baked AI tangent.
Go touch some grass.
- Comment on make fantasy great again! 4 weeks ago:
Thanks!
- Comment on make fantasy great again! 4 weeks ago:
Yes, and I was hoping it would find articles or game descriptions that would give it an answer. I wasn’t expecting magic. I was expecting it to pull from its sources and regurgitate an answer. GTFO of here trying to “wElL AcKsHuLly, AI is…”
Crazy of me to think that in all the games journalism it’s pulled from that it might know. For the record, the answers it did give me were close and it was able to articulate why those answers might not be right because they didn’t meet all of my criteria and it elaborated as to why. The answer I got was actually fairly helpful, unlike whatever you just dumped out.
- Comment on make fantasy great again! 4 weeks ago:
Adding to the requests for a name. I put your post into Gemini and it gave me a few choices, but all clearly wrong, before giving up and saying “it must be some obscure indie title”.
- Comment on Youtuber Geekerwan has find the motherboard of Switch 2 and after reverse-engineer it have simulate the performance on a similar PC 2 months ago:
If you’re gonna post spam, at least spell it right.
- Comment on bork BORK 2 months ago:
You know how notifications work, right? Like, I’m taking a shit scrolling through things. So I’m literally shit talking with you. Enjoy that mental image.
- Comment on bork BORK 2 months ago:
Nah, I get a notification, skim your comment, then post whatever bs feels like it will annoy you the most right now. Takes like 5 seconds of my time. Here I go again!
- Comment on bork BORK 2 months ago:
Oh I don’t even read what you’re saying anymore and just respond with blatant trolling that your too dense to notice.
- Comment on bork BORK 2 months ago:
Nah, I just get a notification and I can do basic math on dates. It’s really not that complicated.
- Comment on bork BORK 2 months ago:
Lol wut? You spent 3 days to think of that? Ok…
- Comment on bork BORK 3 months ago:
Yes, I would agree that the conversation were having is useless but you sure wrote a lot of words…
- Comment on bork BORK 3 months ago:
It’s not equivalent though. It’s a grey wolf made to look like a direwolf. If they’d crispered a grey wolf into a dire wolf, that would be one thing. This is not that. This is basically a designer breed at best.
- Comment on Are Nintendo's $80 online game prices a result of tariffs or is Nintendo just using them as an excuse to price gouge as corporations do? 3 months ago:
Ok, disagree. Show me that games aren’t better. Show me that they aren’t bigger with better graphics, more features, longer stories. Oh yeah, you can’t. So disagree all you want lol.
Also, I’ll just point out again with wages: ok, so cars, houses, everything else has gone up. So explain in economic terms why a luxury good shouldn’t too? I’ll wait. You’re arguing economics of society. That’s a much bigger issue. But please, explain. I’ll wait. I expect more than a few paragraphs, by the way.
- Comment on Are Nintendo's $80 online game prices a result of tariffs or is Nintendo just using them as an excuse to price gouge as corporations do? 3 months ago:
So you have no reason to deserve it but entitlement. Gotcha. Thanks for articulating. Companies don’t owe you shit. As soon as you get that through your head a lot more will make sense. If companies owed you anything, we wouldn’t have micro transactions and season passes and all of that money grubbing bullshit. But did your outrage stop that? Nope. So go ahead and yell and scream and see what it does now.
- Comment on Are Nintendo's $80 online game prices a result of tariffs or is Nintendo just using them as an excuse to price gouge as corporations do? 3 months ago:
Again, what’s it matter? A PS store game is limited to their platform. An Xbox store game is limited to their platform. A Steam game is…
Seeing a pattern? It’s irrelevant. Console exclusivity has always been a thing until modern times. But now we have cross play, something that never existed. So again, objectively better. Are some games still stuck to certain consoles, yeah. And that’s their porogative and frankly is the norm. So what? What reason do you have that you deserve it? You don’t.n you just want it.
- Comment on Are Nintendo's $80 online game prices a result of tariffs or is Nintendo just using them as an excuse to price gouge as corporations do? 3 months ago:
Ummm Nintendo has a digital platform, so not sure what you’re on about that one.
And in regards to indie studios: then buy their games and stop complaining, duh. Like, if you know there’s all these amazing and cheap alternatives, why are you bitching about what Nintendo charges? No one’s forcing you. Go play something else. It’s really that easy.
Nintendo, love em or hate them, is like Disney. They want to curate a very specific image. Look up the invention of the Nintendo Seal of Approval and why that was such a big thing. Nintendo wants to be very specific thing and frankly doesn’t give a shit if you like it. If you dont, then you’re not their target audience. It’s really that simple. Their not catering to everyone, they’re catering to a specific group. If they want to charge a certain amount but you know it’ll be quality cus it’s Nintendo, then what’s the harm?
- Comment on Are Nintendo's $80 online game prices a result of tariffs or is Nintendo just using them as an excuse to price gouge as corporations do? 3 months ago:
Yes, but you can make the wages claim about EVEYTHING. House, cars, food haven’t gone down. Everything else went up. So why is this one luxury exempt?
And yes, because of globalization, a Steam Deck is cheaper than a NES was. That’s great! So why are you complaining when prices are objectively better than 1980? Like yeah, we made things better! And even with inflation, they’re cheaper!
So why are you complaining about a $20-30 increase when the math says you should have a $60 increase? That’s what I’m calling entitlement. We have it objectively better by every metric in video games, including cost, and people are throwing a fit over an increase that’s still below inflation.
- Comment on Are Nintendo's $80 online game prices a result of tariffs or is Nintendo just using them as an excuse to price gouge as corporations do? 3 months ago:
Exactly, games back then were EXPENSIVE. Currently we live in luxury where you have hundreds of options. How does that not justify it costing more?
- Comment on Are Nintendo's $80 online game prices a result of tariffs or is Nintendo just using them as an excuse to price gouge as corporations do? 3 months ago:
Exactly. So then the number of sold units is only $$$ in their eyes, not a reason to be more efficient.
- Comment on Are Nintendo's $80 online game prices a result of tariffs or is Nintendo just using them as an excuse to price gouge as corporations do? 3 months ago:
Lmao that’s a completely seperate issue between you and your employer. Has nothing to do with the value of the dollar.
Has inflation kept up with wages? No. Have prices gone up anyways? Hell yes. Only thing you can find under $1 anymore is Arizona Tea, and even that isn’t a guarantee.
But yes, complain that a luxury item has gone up in cost. You know, something not necessary. So no one needs to make sure “people can afford it”. The ones who can buy, will buy, and the numbers show overwhelmingly that they do.