The game has already consumed over 40 hours of my time, and I’ve got plenty more campaign to go. It does just about all the stuff I wanted JA2 to have to make it play faster - combat is faster, looting is faster, inventory is faster. It has a few things that look like X-COM, but it still mostly plays like JA. The early game is the roughest part but things definitely shaped up once I had a team with size, experience and gear.

And the campaign is detailed with a few surprises and plenty of side quests - it does some things to pull the rug on you, which is rude, but rewarding if you play along and accept a few losses(or carefully savescum and go out of your way to avoid triggering timed quests).

Arch is always “latest and greatest” for every package, including the kernel. It lets you tinker, and it’s always up to date. However, a rolling release introduces more ways to break your system - things start conflicting under the hood in ways that you weren’t aware of, configurations that worked don’t any longer, etc.

This is in contrast to everything built on Debian, which Mint is one example of - Mint adds a bunch of conveniences on top, but the underlying “how it all fits together” is still Debian. What Debian does is to set a target for stable releases and ship a complete set of known-stable packages. This makes it great for set and forget uses, servers that you want to just work and such. And it was very important back in the 90’s when it was hard to get Internet connectivity. But it also means that it stays behind the curve with application software releases, by periods of months to a year+. And the original workaround to that is “just add this other package repository” which, like Arch, can eventually break your system by accident.

But neither disadvantage is as much of a problem now as it used to be. More of the software is relatively stable, and the stuff you need to have the absolute latest for, you can often find as a flatpak, snap, or appimage - formats that are more self-contained and don’t rely on the dependencies that you have installed, just “download and run.”

Most popular distros now are Arch or Debian flavored - same system, different veneer. Debian itself has become a better option for desktop in recent years just because of improvements to the installer.

I’ve been using Solus 4.4 lately, which has its own rolling-release package system. Less software, but the experience is tightly designed for desktop, and doesn’t push me to open terminals to do things like the more classical Unix designs that guide Arch and Debian. The problem both of those face as desktops is that they assume up-front that you may only have a terminal, so the “correct way” of doing everything tends to start and end with the terminal, and the desktop is kind of glued on and works for some things but not others.

I used to experience FOMO over games in general. There was always some kind of technical advance to marvel at. But that ended in the past decade. Some of it because age, but also because my approach to games changed: it wasn’t that important to see more content, especially when the content was getting relatively less risky and more predictable in most cases, the same kind of “put 3D people in a scene and animate them kind of poorly with bad movie dialogue” stuff over and over.

So I tend to pick up games after there’s a lot of DLC and get the bundle depending on what it adds. The microtransactions are an “almost never”, at most they’re another obstacle to gameplay and I’ll go find something else if it’s too much.

The correct microtransaction for me is how pinball works: I play to see how much I can get out of one credit. If I meet the conditions to get a free credit I may play again, or consider that a win and walk away.

I’ve become comfortable with saying, “it’s not worth it being normal”, and thus am ok with the normie tag, even if I don’t want to turn it into a slur. Normal is a form of social construct that tends to be imposed on us: it’s when the teacher enters the classroom and the class sits down and shuts up, not because they explicitly agreed to, but because it was normalized. There isn’t anything in particular suggesting that normal = good.

And that does have an elitist ring to it, which does upset the goal of equitable outcomes in some ways. There are certain philosophies in which a premise of elitism is assumed, as in, some people just won’t be able to access the necessary understanding to participate, so it’s better to have a gate than to let anyone wander through. This is the view of Leo Strauss and followers - for a really detailed explanation try Arthur Melzer’s book Philosophy Between the Lines.

Even if you don’t read that book(it’s a good book), I would make the case in this way: it’s the difference between online gaming that uses automatic matchmaking, versus a martial arts dojo. Online gaming and toxicity correlate because there is no lower bar on who can play, so all sessions are pushed to the lowest common denominator of cheating, griefing, etc. But someone who participates in martial arts like a gamer gets kicked out of the gym, if the standards are high: an instructor who values students does not let them attempt to eyegouge each other or slam their head on the mat.

Occasionally someone like that will sign up for a tournament, commit an illegal move in the first round, and get themselves disqualified. But they can leave their opponent seriously injured in the process, and maybe end a career. So the standards tend to condition a degree of gatekeeping, respect for others, etc. Not every gym does well at this, and some styles like boxing have a norm of “hard sparring” where full-contact is trained and damage is expected. But predominantly the focus is on getting the techniques and training without destroying yourself or others.

And I do liken the idea of complete access to, essentially, allowing dirty street brawls to be the only kind of sparring, the only way in which you can interact online with strangers.

Martial artists also sometimes use the normie term. They will say it outright: you have to be a weirdo to spend so much time getting beat up and choked out. We can have a gate and still be tough on ourselves to do better.

Eugen is not the person I would trust for good judgment on this because his agenda has always been user growth-centric, so a Fediverse that resembles Facebook would just be a “yay” moment for him - either way he can still end up with a career by leveraging his role with ActivityPub.

That said, I don’t believe EEE works here, because AP evolved in an environment that already had to compete like-for-like with corporate options. You’ll still log in for the rest of the fediverse if it brings you better content than Threads…

…and it has an edge on that, because these spaces are not designed around herding around industrial quantities of users. They have a natural size at which moderators shrug and close the gates if a big instance is too troublesome, because it hurts the quality of the experience for their own users. This peeves instance admins who want the power fantasy of “owning” a lot of low-quality users, but it also basically guarantees defederation with corporate social, because it’s never been able to handle its own moderation problem other than in a “pass-the-buck” way.

When I looked for answers I spent some time exploring “personal organization Youtube” and found a few general principles for myself:

• Make a real place for everything, not a pile. The difference between a simple tray or bin and a pile is that you can reposition a container without moving every single item in it. Repeating this principle at different scales from very small to very large will quickly organize things into a hierarchy, make it less exhausting to “declutter” and reduce the chance of errors like knocking over stuff and having a cascade.

• Have more containers than you need. Then you don’t “end up” with a pile forming. But don’t have more containers than is appropriate for the space you’re working with. That’s just a sign of needing to throw out some things.

• Also consider how you “divide” vs “bind” space together. The two are like ying and yang: we divide up documents into pages, but then we bind them together again with various mechanisms like yarn, binder clips or glue. Sometimes the right answer for making a place is assuming it’s pre-divided, but easing binding.

• Taking this idea to its extreme, you can cram a huge number of small items into a three-ring binder with various accessories(pencil pouches, clear dividers, etc.) This is a wonderful way to deal with those products that ship with, e.g., an extra screw.

• You don’t have to invest in expensive containers. Cardboard and leftover food plastic can work on a budget.

• If throwing things out is triggering your hoarding senses, try making spaces of relatively greater and lower priority: your “favorites” vs the “other stuff”. This sorting helps you now by putting the stuff you like within reach, and it helps later by creating an opportunity to declutter by tossing the whole bin at once.

What are the best containers to invest in for the long run? In my opinion, small zipper bags, desk organizers, pencil bins, and cafeteria trays. If you have a lot of round items, a lazy susan, or variations on that like a makeup organizer.

I find that what is needed depends on the task. Mostly, it’s about whether you need to switch views on information frequently. If you’re working in a maximally focused way you already have the right info, so you don’t have to make the view more diverse.

Two monitors can be really helpful if you’re in a situation where you need one view to always stay the same(e.g. reading one document while editing another) and the editing app is some fussy internal thing that always wants to be on the first window when started, but I also haven’t had that setup in quite a few years. Tiling can get you 80% of that if the screen is sufficiently large and the software cooperates.

When in Windows I stick to using the Win + arrow keys shortcuts to tile; in Linux I’ve used a few different WMs over the years but lately have been using Ubuntu defaults and basically working with it like Windows.

There is a lot of utility from not relying on screens and using a small gridded or ruled notebook with a spiral binding as the second screen. Mark it up with color multipens and sticky notes, and take it around in your jacket pocket or a belt bag.

Meta attempts to federate and every user is immediately swarmed with bots that tell them to stop using Meta, a baby site for babies, forcing Meta to defederate.

The result is that (at least so far) both the post and the hashtag has not federated to lemmy.ml, or to my Mastodon accounts. On kbin it appears, but backwards in time to when the topic was first posted.

Remember that fedi is “multi-dimensional” in that we have both community subscriptions and account-to-account follows. When I follow someone from my kbin account, the threads they post and boost start appearing in my “microblog” feed, and that can lead to community discovery. So one way to grow the community is to build microblogging awareness by encouraging follows and boosts, using hashtags, etc. There are already hashtags being used on fedi - actually, let me test something out here and see if I can get it to show up elsewhere:

#mastodon

To get the initial federation going, some kind of “subscribing” action has to take place, e.g. following a user.

Not dead, just sleeping. It’s a tougher, higher interest-rate market which cuts out a lot of the gambling behavior. I remain invested but my principle has shifted away from the financial and trad-economic terms to this:

Blockchains are valuable where they secure valuable information. Therefore, if a blockchain adds more valuable information, it becomes more valuable.

And that’s it. You don’t have to introduce markets and trading to make the point, but it positions those elements in a supporting role, and gets at one of the most pressing issues of today: where should our sources of truth online start? Blockchains can’t solve the problems of false sensation, reasoning or belief, but they fill in certain technical gaps where we currently rely on handing over custody to someone’s database and hoping nothing happens or they’re too big to fail. It’s just a matter of aligning the applications towards the role of public good, and the air is clear for that right now.

Drawing gets a lot easier if you approach it as a muscle-memory skill like calisthenics or juggling - if you can write letters neatly, you can also learn to draw shapes you’ve practiced. The early exercises in books like Keys to Drawing (Dodson) or The Natural Way to Draw (Nicolaides) introduce ways to practice those skills, and then the rest is “find subjects you want to draw”, which can be as simple as watching a video, pausing it, and quickly using that for the exercise. Do that for a few minutes a day for a few weeks and drawing skills will magically emerge.

There are tons of “how to draw tutorials” that don’t explain any of this, speak about it conceptually, and tell you to go draw a thousand cubes, which will make you better at drawing…cubes. (There is some point to that kind of technical skill, but it’s not the thing to invest in if you just want to use images to tell a story)

The thing about larger-scale architecture is that you can be correct in any specific sense that it’s more than you need, but when you actually try to make the thing across a development team, you end up there because the code reflects the organization, and having it broken up like that lets you more easily rewrite your previous decisions.

At the small scale this occurs when you notice that the way in which you have to approach a feature is linguistically different - it needs conversion to a substantially different data structure, or an interface that compiles imperative commands from a definition. The whole idea of the database having a general purpose structure and its own query language emerges from that - it lets you defer the question of exactly how you want to use the data. The more configuration you add, the more of those layers you need. When you start supporting enterprise-grade flexibility it gets out of control and you end up with a configuration language that resembles a general purpose programming environment, but worse.

Casey Muratori talks about this kind of thing in some depth.

In the end, the point of the code is to help you “arrive in the future” in some sense - it’s instrumental, the point of automating it is to improve the quality of your result by some metric(e.g. fewer errors). For a lot of computations, that means you should just use a spreadsheet - it aids the data entry task, it automates enough of the detail that you can get things done, but it also gets out of the way instead of turning into a professionalized project.

The url from kbin is https://kbin.social/m/main@sh.itjust.works/t/37881/Unhappy-with-Lemmy

So it’s federated, you just have to check the url. It’s already confused me once - something kbin could improve on.

One direction to take this conversation is to legitimize a formal ads platform and move the technology in that direction. It’s not a concept that has had airtime in federated social(open source, anti-corporate and all) but it fits into the model of enthusiast communities to have a magazine that is “both articles and ads”.

I’ve had some thoughts on, essentially, doing more of what historically worked; a mix of “archival quality materials” and “incentives for enthusiasts”. If we only focus on accumulating data like IA does, it is valuable, but we soak up a lot of spam in the process, and that creates some overwhelming costs.

The materials aspect generally means pushing for lower fidelity, uncomplicated formats, but this runs up against what I call the “terrarium problem”: to preserve a precious rare flower exactly as is, you can’t just take a picture, you have to package up the entire jungle. Like, we have emulators for old computing platforms, and they work, but someone has to maintain them, and if you wanted to write something new for those platforms, you are most likely dealing with a “rest of the software ecosystem” that is decades out of date. So I believe there’s an element to that of encoding valuable information in such a way that it can be meaningful without requiring the jungle - e.g. viewing text outside of its original presentation. That tracks with humanity’s oldest stories and how they contain some facts that survived generations of retellings.

The incentives part is tricky. I am crypto and NFT adjacent, and use this identity to participate in that unabashedly. But my view on what it’s good for has shifted from the market framing towards examination of historical art markets, curation and communal memory. Having a story be retold is our primary way of preserving it - and putting information on-chain(like, actually on-chain. The state of the art in this can secure a few megabytes) creates a long-term incentive for the chain to “retell its stories” as a way of justifying its valuation. It’s the same reason as why museums are more than “boring old stuff”.

When you go to a museum you’re experiencing a combination of incentives: the circumstances that built the collection, the business behind exhibiting it to the public, and the careers of the staff and curators. A blockchain’s data is a huge collection - essentially a museum in the making, with the market element as a social construct that incentivizes preservation. So I believe archival is a thing blockchains could be very good at, given the right framing. If you like something and want it to stay around, that’s a medium that will be happy to take payment to do so.