starelfsc2

joined 1 year ago
[–] starelfsc2@sh.itjust.works 7 points 8 hours ago

Lol what it's someone being rude and getting kicked for it

[–] starelfsc2@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 days ago

You've probably seen this but this video is basically exactly why this is the case. I suppose the only path forward is for democrats to exploit anything they can and go even lower (like increasing the number of justices so you get a majority) and then both parties race to see who can exploit the constitution more. I think no democrat wants to do this because it would be insanity, but the Republicans have been doing it for years so there really aren't many options left.

[–] starelfsc2@sh.itjust.works 33 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (7 children)

You can say this but when a republican policy is "drill for more oil" and a democratic policy is "focus on clean energy," one is easier, cheapens prices, and has readily apparent effects. Many democrat policies are long term goals that people won't notice, and might even hurt them in the short term, but they need to be done. Medicare will increase taxes, supporting Ukraine and not taking Russian oil increases prices, and most people agree these policies are good things. Yet what is the biggest complaint under Biden? Skyrocketing inflation, because the average voter doesn't care about policy they just care how it affects their lives.

You're asking for an impossible solution if you want the party of "this is a hard decision but will benefit us all in the future" to have the same draw as "here's cheaper prices NOW, we'll ignore the future." Not to mention as you already said republicans will block any and all attempts at real change. It's completely unfair that even if 90% of a democrat candidate's platform is beneficial, that's not good enough since they don't have the short-term effects to wow people with. If democratic policies reduced prices and republican policies increased them (say, swap the stances on oil and climate), we could have a literal potato as the candidate and people would run to vote for it.

[–] starelfsc2@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 days ago

.world is also the most commonly linked instance on reddit, so half the time you're just dealing with angry redditors. Generally every time I say "wow this is so disappointing to see" it's a .world post and the other half of the comments are trying to fight back against them. I think it's just the nature of online communities that they get more toxic as they grow.

You're definitely dodging more toxicity than you are positivity with blocking .world, every time I've seen just the worst comment ever it's from .world. There might be an app or way to block the comments but not the posts from an instance, since nearly all .world posts seem fine (you could ask in the app community on lemmy, they're generally super friendly). Sorry I can't give better advice. Me personally I just stick to the positive communities and only brave the .world trenches if I'm feeling up to it (and make heavy use of blocking toxic communities)

[–] starelfsc2@sh.itjust.works 10 points 5 days ago (2 children)

I'm sorry you had to deal with that lemmy is definitely a bit more wild in terms of strong opinions, some very cool people on here but also a lot of immaturity.

I'm not trans but isn't that a normal thing to think before posting? I'm fine with saying to my friends "(wo)men have hurt me in the past, and it makes me less trustful of them" but I wouldn't comment that publicly, since either I get weirdos saying "yeah I hate (wo)men too" or weirdos saying "the other sex does this but worse!" Either way they don't get what I mean, so I'm going to be very careful with qualifying what I say. It's a hot-button topic and it sucks I have to do that just to share an experience, but a lot of people are sensitive (myself included) to perceived attacks. I still get people misunderstanding it, but that's usually 1/100 instead of 1/5. It sucks that it doesn't feel like a group of friends, but there are a lot of communities on lemmy that will ban people acting like jerks (lemmy.blahaj.zone for one)

[–] starelfsc2@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 weeks ago

This is why I use it, also the more people who use it the more accurate it is

[–] starelfsc2@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 weeks ago

This is 100% not true as I have personally had several times where I got ransomware (though still the thing I wanted to download somehow?) in late 2000s / 2010s. Hasn't happened a single time since, even downloading the most sketchy torrents. For a lot of younger people, if they want to torrent something they're not looking at trackers or much of anything, they just want the download. Windows defender used to be complete trash at preventing viruses so you'd need to know to download things like malwarebytes and be a lot more wary of what you download, and even if the torrent is 100% legit you'd have random registry/driver/software issues. Now these issues are rare unless you're downloading some custom software or a much older game.

The one thing I would say was a lot easier back then is it would say "xyz free download" and it actually would be the thing itself instead of random bloatware.

[–] starelfsc2@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 month ago

Lol that is probably the funniest way to give a source I've seen

[–] starelfsc2@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

Oh I've seen I think all of the others, which is why this one was a little disappointing to me. The 2nd and 3rd videos in the playlist are something I think about a lot, where conservatives are taught all the deflection arguments and fake accusations so at no point do they need to defend the indefensible. I more just wanted to bump the post in case someone else comes across his channel and gets interested, since about 70% of what he makes are bangers

[–] starelfsc2@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago (4 children)

I felt like the content of this video was already pretty evident, maybe just because I've heard other creators talk about dealing with this same issue so often.

[–] starelfsc2@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Sorry this ended up a lot longer than I intended lol

I went back and watched through most of the first season, and I really do find it strange, it's like overtly left leaning text pretty often, but consistent conservative subtext. By that I mean they will have hodgins and bones saying "tax cuts to the rich instead of giving that money to poor neighborhoods like this so they stay poor, and minimum wage hasn't budged in 8 years, and it's even worse if you're an illegal immigrant." They'll talk about people being gay and just treat it as normal but don't ever show it on screen(I would say this is neutral/a little positive?). Bones likes rap music, they're constantly asking "are you threatened by working with a woman?" and she knows martial arts and self defense and shows it off very regularly. Angela is very independent as well.

But at the same time, bones is consistently showing needing support from booth and angela (hardly ever the other way around), women are usually dressed in pretty revealing ways (angela and bones pretty consistently wear low vnecks), one episode someone plants a carbomb and they think it's a muslim, then pretend "how dare we think it was a muslim" and then it turns out it's his brother who is also muslim and says he did it for his god? Every time Booth mentions christianity it's seen as positive and heartwarming for him or people he meets, and bones even becomes the damsel in distress and Booth has to rescue her, which makes all her punching and fighting seem irrelevant.

It's very weird it feels like it's all plausable deniability where they could say that's just what we wanted to write an episode about (other than the Booth is a strong man who cares about real american values) I didn't even realize they explained away brennan's autistic coding by saying it was her upbringing, like that's the only way someone could be like that (or with the autistic kid being autistic only because he's >160 iq, otherwise he'd be normal).

.

I think the only things I would disagree with is, Bones didn't become rich by pulling herself up, it was just because she worked as an escape, and then I think the writers just wanted to show that she is successful in everything she tries because she's just awesome that awesome (possibly conservative coding?)

I would also say Bones feels in charge half the time, even more in charge than the administrator really. She'll ignore Booth and all the laws and all the rules and do what she thinks is right, and then Booth usually ends up following after her (to protect her of course). The Administrator started off as above everyone but later in the season it feels like he's their colleague who deals with the press and tells bones that she has to go with Booth sometimes. I think if you replaced him with a woman no one would really notice unless it was in the first few episodes. I also think Booth isn't quite a perfect conservative American, maybe a perfect soldier, specifically because he will lie to people, do the wrong thing, etc, but it's what his boss told him to do. At least that's what it seems like, the writing for him and Bones are probably the most inconsistent in the whole show. Also the autistic kid, I think it literally was just the writers wanted to kill off a main character, and so they just decided on him because it was easy. To be honest if I was the writer I would've done the same thing, most episodes it feels like he doesn't add anything unique or interesting, just a "look I'm smart." Lots of interesting stories to tell with an autistic character, but if they don't know how to tell them and it makes the character unpopular, time to get rid of him I guess.

Other than that I think you pretty much nailed it, I just wanted to say that I found pretty often the show is surprisingly progressive, just maybe not in the subtext of the show. It's just such a weird mash-up of "look how progressive we are, we have a badass woman, the guy is getting bossed around" that somehow turns into "the strong man learned to do the right thing and also saved the woman." I think since Booth is always in focus and always showing he's a strong conservative man, they can get away with saying whatever they want, because the progressive words don't matter, what matters is how it feels. (Note this is all based off season 1, later seasons they definitely lean in to what the fans want and a lot of conservatives were definitely watching)

[–] starelfsc2@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I find this happens any time I engage with anything anyone on the right also likes watching, like a gun channel, or a non-political video from a right leaning channel. I think the algorithm is just saying "I saw a republican watch this once so if you watched it there's still some chance you'll engage with this right wing content."

I think it pushes it so heavily because it's a gold mine (to the algorithm) since content by those channels is so heavily consumed.

 

I recently watched a video about an unpolled change in old-school runescape that added the ability to change your character's pronouns, as well as have beards as female characters, and the community's reaction to it. Sadly, most of the runescape playerbase is pretty right leaning, with the expected reactions of "this is dumb why would they add this," "why add this unpolled," and "this is a medieval fantasy game not a dating simulator"

I wonder what people's thoughts on this are, as if you are a paying customer for a game, and the game has been promised to only add poll-approved changes, is this unreasonable and why? The game is "old-school runescape," the players are notoriously resistant to change, and are paying to keep the game as they like it. Can you pay to keep your uninclusive game uninclusive? I don't have a great argument against it past "this literally doesn't matter" which won't convince people who believe it does.

 

Hi all, I've been recently playing some somewhat old games and have had trouble with either crashing, or weird graphical glitches.

The list of games I've tried:

Warcraft III (a custom map, normal game seems to work fine) Quake 2 Spring engine 103 (rts engine)

Warcraft 3 has a glitched white bar following the cursor, and the map crashes with "access violation" as the only error, as did the rts engine. I managed to fix the crash by running a 64 bit version of spring engine, but it then had this weird graphical glitch: https://imgur.com/a/ij6FaWa I looked in the settings and kept changing anything I could think of, one was to set UseVBO=0 which fixed that graphical problem, but sometimes the game will still crash with "access violation" Quake 2 replaces all projectile sprites/trails with a circle: https://imgur.com/a/qtLR2To

I'm thinking this is a weird problem with my AMD card, because I have a computer with the same 64 bit OS and all of these games work fine on it, and I played quake 2 before on this computer with the only difference being I swapped the graphics card and motherboard (exact same model mobo) I've tried running warcraft 3 with djvoodoo and that didn't seem to help, I've read online amd cards can have issues with older games running openGL and directx. Those posts are pretty old, but they make me think I might be SOL with an amd card

specs: OS: windows 10 home 64 bit mobo: gigabyte z690 UD ddr4 processor: intel i7 12700kf gfx: amd radeon RX 6800 XT

Appreciate any ideas!

Edit: wc3 crash log: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/xrfw98rs7yhy356gt725g/2023-07-30-12.35.02-Crash.txt?rlkey=dp9oiqcibo4kigeq8lpzk8s0o&dl=0 running spring with a 32-bit launcher gives me Error: Failed to allocate memory 100% of the time I run it with UseVBO=1, 64 bit launcher gives me the graphical problem with UseVBO=1, and both work fine with UseVBO=0 quake 2 issue seems resolved if I change the openGL version, though it did work fine with previous settings before changing the graphics card, apparently this is a known issue pending future release.

view more: next ›