TheBananaKing

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago

Where's your Western Civilisation now?

[–] [email protected] 52 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Okay:

In 1948, just after WWII, the UK decided to carve a chunk out of Palestine and create a new state there, called Israel - as a Jewish homeland that would take all the refugees that the rest of Europe didn't want to deal with.

Palestine was not happy about this - the land was taken without their consent, a great chunk of their country just taken from them by decree, backed up by a still highly militarized Europe.

Over the following decades, Palestine tried several times to take their country back, and each time got slapped down (since Israel had vast backing from UK/USA/Europe, both from postwar guilt and because Israel had a lot of strategic value as a platform from which to project military power in the middle east).

Cut to today, and Israel has expanded to take virtually the entire area, apart from some tiny scattered patches of land, and the Gaza strip - a strip of land 40km by 10km, containing most of the Palestinian population, blockaded by sea and land by the Israeli military.

Israel also runs an apartheid regime very similar to the old South African one - Palestinians have very few human or civil rights, generally get no protection from the Israeli police or military, while being treated as hostile outsiders that can be assaulted or have their land 'settled' at will by Israelis.

It has been decades since Palestine has had any kind of organised military, and it's also not recognised as its own country by most of the world, so there's virtually no way for it to push back, or to call on assistance.

In a situation like that, the only recourse is guerilla warfare, which often descends into (and is exploited by bad actors as) terrorist attacks. It's a damn good way to farm martyrs, and this hugely serves Israel's ends, since it can keep pointing to terrorim as justification for their ongoing oppression. Israel in fact provided a great deal of ongoing funding for Hamas, while blocking more moderate groups.

Back in October, a small organised group raided across the border from Gaza into Israel, killing about 1200 people and taking a couple of hundred hostages.

In response, Israel has killed over 40,000 Palestinans in Gaza - mainly women and children - systematically destroying the city's infrastructure, water, power, food production and distribution, hospitals, universities and schools, bombing refugee camps and destroying the majority of all housing and shelter in the area. It's also bombing humanitarian aid convoys, preventing food and medicine from reaching the people there. The death toll is expected to reach many hundreds of thousands, since people are already starving and there is no medical care available.

The rest of the world is wringing their hands about the 'regrettable' loss of life, while continuing to sell Israel all the weapons and bombs it needs to continue the genocide.

Fuck Israel.

 

Probably a neurodivergent thing to some degree, but I don't know how literal people are being when they talk about being scared during/after watching a movie about scary things.

I can totally get picking up second-hand anxiety from on-screen portrayals, similar to picking up second-hand embarrassment or cringe.

But to my mind that's very different emotion from fear, and I don't quite grasp being afraid of something you understand is fictional, or what precisely persists after the movie is done.

I mean sure, jumpscares can be startling in the moment, but I don't get walking around with elevated threat-perception outside of the very narrow context of suspending disbelief, which is what people seem to describe. Threat of what?

Do people actually worry that the axe murderer is going to walk out of the TV and kill them in their beds? Is it just hyperbole when they talk about being afraid during, or especially afterwards? What do people actually experience?

Yes it's a stupid question, but I'm wired up funny and have no ground truth here.

For bonus points, I don't get sad at sad movies either: oh no, they stopped drawing the deer. But what really fucks me up is sudden vindication, and I don't know what to call that emotion.

As an accessible example: Inside Out. I didn't blink at Bing Bong dying, but when Joy finally realised what Sadness was for, and that she wasn't just a useless burden... I have very few defenses against whatever the hell that emotion is. What is it, exactly?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

NVIDIA RIVA 128

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago

I've never had AI code run straight off the bat - generally because if I've resorted to asking an AI, I've already spent an hour googling - but it often gives me a starting point to narrow my search.

There's been a couple of times it's been useful outside of coding/config - for example, finding the name of some legal concepts can be fairly hard with traditional search, if you don't know the surrounding terminology.

For the most part, it's worthless garbage.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 days ago

it's an effective meta for rich people.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago

being alive

[–] [email protected] 146 points 6 days ago (7 children)

Because the conditions required for fascism to take root have been incubating for decades.

Massive wealth inequality, insecure employment, non-existent labor laws and worker's rights, hollowed-out education, healthcare and social services, large corporations getting to write their own laws verbatim, political parties sucking dick for their donors, endless war ensuring unlimited money for the military-industrial complex, demonization of brown-people-of-the-week, fetishization of 'the troops' and ongoing acceptance of brutality.

People are poor, desperate, ignorant, exploited and forgotten, they're shown every day that killing the shit out of outsiders is the solution to all the country's problems, anyone pushing actual progressive ideals is shut down and demonized as a threat to the profits of the 0.1%, giving people a choice between rightwing bastardry and neoliberal bastardry as their only lens through which to see the world.

Give that the opportunity to flare up and of course it's fucking going to. The republicans want it, the dems do nothing to prevent it.

It's like watching a party get the wrong kind of rowdy all night, you keep supplying drinks regardless, then you wonder why it turns into a fight, oh no how could this ever happen?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago

Sucks to your ass-mar

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

If rent-increase caps aren't part of it, it's all hilariously worthless.

Want your tenant gone, just put the rent up $10,000 a week, then when they can't pay, you have grounds to evict. Simples.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Okay:

You don't have to deal with scripting and command-line stuff, but all the major tinkering under the hood depends on it. The amount of customisation and tinkering is fairly infinite, so past a certain point you just can't build graphical stuff to cover every single possible choice - and that's where the gibberish comes in.

Baseline concepts:

'Operating system' means different things in different contexts, and this can be confusing.


Context 1: technically correct

Your computer has a big chip that runs programs, and a bunch of hardware that actually-does-stuff: network card, graphics card, disk drive, mouse, keyboard etc. Programs need to talk to the hardware and make it do stuff, or else they don't actually... do... anything.

There's two problems with that:

There's a gazillion kinds of hardware out there, that all has its own language for talking to it, and your program would either only run on one EXACT set of hardware, or it would have to speak all gazillion languages and be too big to fit on your machine.

The second problem is that in order to do more than one thing at a time, you need a bunch of programs all running at once, and they all need to use the hardware, and without something to coordinate the sharing, they'll all just fight over it and everything falls down in a tangled heap.

A good analogy for this is a restaurant. They aren't just public kitchens where you can just wander in and start preparing your own meal, taking ingredients/equipment/space however you want, then just carry it to whatever table takes your fancy - and you definitely can't have all the customers doing it at once. Especially if they don't know how all the equipment works, where the different ingredients are kept, etc - it would be an absolute disaster, and there would be fights, injuries, fire and food poisoning.

So instead there's an agreed-upon system with rules, and people that do the cooking for you. You make a reservation or queue at the desk, you are told which table you can have, you go sit there and a waiter brings you a menu. You pick the food - and depending on the place, maybe ask for customisation - then wait and they bring it out to you, then you sit there, eat it, then leave.

That system-with-rules is the operating system, or more specifically the operating system kernel. Any time a program wants to do more than think to itself, it has to asks the OS to do it, and bring it the results.

In this analogy, fundamentally different operating systems (windows / linux / OSX / android / etc) would be like different kinds of (5-star / sushi-train / pizza place / burger joint / etc) that have different rules and expectations and social-scripts to interact with them. A program written for one OS would have no idea how to ask a different OS for what it wanted, and wouldn't be able to run there.


Context 2: what people usually mean

It's all well and good to have a machine that can run programs and do things, but the human sitting in front of it needs to be able to interact with the thing, so you can poke buttons and move files around and move windows and stuff.

And so there needs to be a crapton of programs all working with each other on the thing to provide all this functionality, and the whole user experience - preferably with a consistent design language and general expectation of how everything should work: you need a desktop environment.

In restaruant terms, this would be the specific brand/franchise/corporate-culture that runs the place. Yes, the general idea is that it's a burger joint, but specifically it's a mcdonalds, or a wendy's, or whatever that homophobic chickenburger place is called - it's got the decor, it's got the layout, it's got the specific combo meals, etc etc, the same uniforms, the same staff policy, etc.

Now here's the thing:

Let's say there's only one sushi franchise in the world. That's like Windows - there's updates new versions and some slight variations (server versions aside), but you walk into one, you've walked into them all. There's one Windows kernel, and one windows desktop environment that goes with it.

And say there's only one pizza-place franchise in the world, and they all look the same, have the same menu. That's like OSX: there's one kernel, and similarly one OSX desktop enviroment to go with it. A mac is a mac, and it does mac things.

But linux... linux is different. With Linux, it's there's 900 different burger-joint franchises in the world, and literally anyone can go start a new one if they want to put the time into designing one from the ground up. The paradigm is the same - order at the counter at the back, menus on the wall overhead, grab bench seating wherever or get it to go - but every place can design the look and feel, the menu, the deals, the other amenities, the staffing structure, etc.

And the different franchises - that's what distros are.

It's the set of programs all working together that create a whole working enviroment, but everything uses the standard kernel to actually get stuff done. If your program can run in one linux distro, then it should be able to run in a different one, because your program uses the same standard set of requests in order to do things.

The windows and the menus and the desktop apps and the way the interface behaves and how you configure everything can be different, but the core functionality that the software uses, is the same.


Now, for the most part, Windows is like NO USER-SERVICEABLE PARTS INSIDE, all the fiddly internal bits are carefully hidden away and made deliberately opaque. You don't need to know, we don't want to tell you, we'll let you change the wallpaper, but for everything else, we decide how it's wired up. If you want it to do things slightly differently to suit your own workflow, tough.

Macs are kind of the same deal: for the most part it's no-touchee, you'll break stuff. Just push the very shiny buttons and be happy that everything Just Works (tm).

But Linux... doesn't seal anything in plastic. All the gubbins are not only there on display, they're mostly all human-readable and human-tinkerable with. Instead of mysterious monolithic chunks of software communicating with each other via hidden channels, with configuration in databases you don't get to see... it's mostly scripts you can read and tinker with, and plain-text config files you can edit, all writing useful details in highly-visible log files that you can read through when things don't do what they're supposed to.

Now with a lot of distros, you absolutely can just push buttons and treat the thing like a Windows box, and never have to tinker with the fiddly bits. You've got a browser, you've got apps, you've got games, it just does the thing. But if you want to start getting technical, you absolutely can - unlike windows or mac.

But this very ability to configure and tinker and patch bits on - and the fact that most distros don't have a gigantic microsoft-sized coordinated team all following one shared vision, but are wired together like a kind of junkyard frankenstein from thousands of separate teams as a labour of love - means that occasionally you will need to get technical to deal with small annoyances or use-cases they didn't think of.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yes, yes she is.

Someone once described her as machine girl's furry alt account :D

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 week ago

Good lord, speak plainly.

That's more of a swingers thing than a poly thing.

In the vast majority of poly relationships, people are in separate relationships with each of their partners.

Triads (and quads, etc) are hard-mode. They certainly exist, but they take skill and effort from everyone involved, and so are significantly more rare. And of those, probably only a minority are going to be into the whole group-sex thing in the first place so... not very often.

 

I've been playing the things since Diablo I; I love the concept and the gameplay loop, but the game-design issues they run up against, and the mechanics that get implemented to address them... irritate the crap out of me over time, and I want to talk about that.

I think the paradox at the core of it all is that the gameplay loop is basically Stardew Valley in Doom clothing.

It's not a hunting game, it's a gathering game. Walk through this area, and harvest all the objects. Explore every part of the map, rip up all the weeds, look for hidden goodies under every fallen log.

The satisfaction you feel ripping through a wave of mobs isn't the satisfaction from triumphantly pounding your enemy's skull into a pile of bloody ashes and limping away, it's the satisfaction you get from ripping off a really big crackly sheet of tree bark in one go. You could probably reskin the whole thing into an apartment-cleaning game and it would still work.

And that would be fine in and of itself, but it probably wouldn't sell many copies - so they dress it up as Epic Monster Combat, and that's where the problems begin - layers and layers of obfuscation to hide the seams.

In order not to feel tedious and grindy, there needs to be a sense of progression; your standard power-fantasy stuff, where the challenges increase, you improve to meet them, rinse and repeat. In practice this equates to a varying number of clicks-per-mob. You start out needing three clicks to defeat a mob, over time you get better gear and go down to two clicks, level up and drop to one click, and woah I'm so powerful. But oh no! A new area with bigger scarier mobs! They take three clicks, even with my new powers!

But of course you'd see through that straight away, so they put numbers on everything. You see bigger and bigger damage numbers as you level up, so it keeps feeling more impressive. For a while, at least.

But that only lasts so long before you start to feel played for a chump, so slap on more and more layers to hide the lines, and make little mini-metagames around navigating them. Trouble is, those minigames really aren't very fun.

Scattering a dozen different stats and resistances across half a dozen gear slots is just a box-packing game. You want to get the best possible numbers for each attribute, but they're clustered randomly across all the different items, so you need to evaluate a butt-ton of different combinations in order to get the best coverage. I'm guessing that's going to have some kind of shitty NP-hard algorithmic complexity, so you're basically doing the travelling salesman problem in your head. Wheee. (ok but seriously this has to map to a named problem that someone's analyzed already... any ideas?)

And hey look, there's the insanely complicated perk tree of PoE, or the similarly confusing devotions from Grim Dawn. Again it looks like they're confusing complexity with richness, and making optimization too confusing to do without third-party tools or even less fun, following a published build. (for god's sake, if we're going down that route, let us plug the final build in at the start, then auto-level towards it)

Item sets! Because there's nothing like grinding for weeks until your corneas dry out, filling up endless stash tabs with partial sets that you'll level out of before you ever complete; it's so much fun. Crafting recipes, same deal, and even worse, meta builds that rely on unique items that are impossible to reliably SSF, so you spend your whole game grinding for trade.

And on and on, there's so many symptomatic patches to delay the eventual ennui, but no fixes to the fundamental design issue that causes it. You can't just take them away and replace them with nothing, or you'd be bored in minutes. But building up to completely jaded after a couple of weeks once you start playing the engine rather than the game is also pretty crappy.

How do you make the fighting feel like fighting instead of watering cauliflowers, or else how do you make crop-harvesting feel badass? How do you create a sense of progression beyond mere stat inflation? How do you do a rich slew of possibilities without creating spaghetti hell that ends up only having six basic metas at the end of it? How for the love of god do you make combat feel intense without blanketing the entire screen in particle effects? Could someone design a system where every build can be effective if you adapt your playstyle to suit?

I dunno, It just feels like the genre is still only half-invented, and waiting around for someone to do it properly.

Thoughts?

 

So, fungal spores are literally everywhere, and the requirements for fungus to thrive seem to be trivially low; give it a moderately humid environment and it'll grow on a bare concrete wall ffs eating god only knows what; the dust from the air maybe?

Well, and the great outdoors is full of slightly damp places, many of them downright soggy most of the time - and absolutely rife with organic material to snack on.

Where's the bottleneck? Why isn't the world a choking fungal hellscape?

 

Actually this would be a neat mechanic in-game: everyone around you nopes the fuck out at the sight of you, especially if you killed them previously.

They don't know and they don't understand, but things are very firmly Not Ok.

Partly the cost of failure, possibly a strategic tool.

5
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

Presumably either a terrible idea or already a thing, not sure which.

I'm thinking crispy-fried-aromatics-in-oil, Mediterranean edition. Garlic, eschalots (aka scallions), thyme/rosemary/etc, vast quantity of parsley, peppercorns, lemon zest, fine-diced rye sourdough.

Jar of that in the fridge, use it like chilli crisp but for white-people food.

Is this a thing? Should it be a thing?

 

So, uh, stupid question, but I'm not from the US.

Do Saul Goodman (Bob Odenkirk) and Michael Scott (Steve Carell) share a specific accent? If so, what is it?

They both get that same distinctive tone in their voice when excited; is that a thing from somewhere, or do they just kind of sound alike as humans?

 

City boy checking in.

So, this one time out on a hike in a semi-rural area, the trail opened out on a grassy riverbank kind of place, and there were a dozen or so cows between me and the path onwards.

Now, I mostly grasp which end of a cow the grass goes in, but that's about my limit; I have no real idea how they operate IRL.

I ended up carefully edging my way past them and gave them as much space as I possibly could, and got extremely stared at by all of them, who probably thought I was nuts.

Just out of curiosity - how careful did I need to be? Can you just like walk through the middle of them, or would that be asking for trouble?

 

As I understand it there's two main kinds of empathy: cognitive and affective.

Cognitive empathy is the ability to perceive and understand the emotional states of others, and affective empathy is actually sharing those emotions yourself.

I do the former, but the latter doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Like, if I see someone being sad, it's possible that I'll be sad or angry that they're in that situation, but those will be my feelings about what's going on, not theirs.

But for those of you who inherently feel-what-you-see, how does this work with, say, anger?

If you see someone being terribly angry, do you feel angry yourself? If so, who do you feel angry at? If you see a fight going on, do you hate both participants?

If someone is angry at you, are you also angry at you?

I guess this applies to any targeted emotion, but anger is a good example.

 

Yes it's old, I know.

In this opening theme, that deeply unsettling fuzzy vibrato tone.

I'm sure it's copying some kind of hospital sound effect, like an old-tech intercom tone or a warning buzzer, but I just cannot fucking place it. I know I know this sound.

It's driving me nuts. Can someone please tell me what it is? Bonus points if you can link to a recording.

 

while picking up some paperwork. AAARGH.

 

M49, I tend to go a bit long between haircuts which is on me, but I seem to have a really hard time explaining that I want short hair, like 20mm / 3/4"

I usually ask for a #2 clipper on the back and sides, (which works fine), then take as much as they off the top so I can still brush it straight up, preferably too short to grab onto.

Basically a cigar butt with eyes, shut up it works for me.

Even indicating with thumb and finger, this somehow gets interpreted as just barely trimming the tips off and painstakingly shaping the surface, barely affecting the overall quantity of hair.

How's that for length?

What no, get in there with fire and the sword, wreak devastation, I want all of this gone.

:carefully trims another quarter inch off:

It's not just one guy, not just one place, so I am obviously using wrong and misleading words.

How do I ask for the thing I want?

view more: next ›