• 0 Posts
  • 27 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 12th, 2023

help-circle

  • Just to be clear: Dutch people agree that rapists of 12 year old girls (such as the convicted child rapist van de Velde, who raped a 12 year old girl) should be punished and not go on to represent their country at the Olympics. There may however be old farts and creeps in positions of power that try to make excuses for convicted child rapist Van de Velde who believe a technicality over an unprovable state of mind matter when it comes to the damage caused by having a convicted child rapist represent your country both to the victim of convicted child rapist Van de Velde and to the reputation of the Netherlands.

    TLDR: Convicted child rapist Van de Velde should be kicked off his team and the Member of the committee that thought it was relevant whether he is paedophile or not should resign. Both are a disgrace to the country and should not be used as representatives.




  • I don’t think that is an accurate reading of what he is expressing. Crate (his company) is a smallish indie studio that makes high quality games (in my opinion) and supports them long term with both paid DLCs and free updates.

    He made that statement when talking about Embracer Group that was looking to buy Crate. When he told them “we are currently working on an RTS” they said “Why don’t you make something multi platform and a different genre instead?” (i.e. a cashgrab) to which his reply was “you can’t buy my company, fuck off”.

    RTS are inherently limited to PC. RTS are not popular as eSports anymore. His company is making one not because they want a short term profit, but because he thinks they could make a great one for a niche target group that will stay loyal for a long time (e.g. their 2016 game Grim Dawn just got a massive free content update and a new story DLC in February this year).




  • “We totally would have saved the climate if you had only paid us enough.” Bitch, please.

    The trillions the oil industry has earned over the years were not enough?
    You had enough money, you had the knowledge of the problem and what you could do to fix it and you had enough time to change your strategy from lieing and denying.

    The only thing you didn’t have was the will to give up a single cent to help clean up the damage you have done.

    Imagine what could have been done with half of the 52 trillion the oil and gas industry earned in the last 50 years (that’s without coal, even). Imagine how far we could have developed renewable energy sources. What we could have achieved with carbon capture. What could be done today if the fossil industries propaganda hadn’t turned climate change into a question of political opinions.

    Fuck that guy. He and his ilk created this mess and they got fat of it. He doesn’t get to shift blame.





  • They both approximate perfect representation close enough. If the difference between one government or the other comes down to variations that are basically explained by the weather being good or bad on voting day, you can’t really claim that the government isn’t representative.

    Just because it didn’t represent YOUR opinion, it doesn’t make it less representative. A truly representative government will make decisions that align with 10% of the population 10% of the time. So if 10% of the population want to bomb Canada a perfectly representative government will make it happen every 40 years or so.


  • Don’t actually tear down church buildings though.

    Many of them are beautiful and even if the morals of the Organisation(s) that built them are, to put it mildly, “outdated”, it is still a huge part of our cultural history.

    Use the spaces to open “sexual health centers” (like Planned Parenthood on steroids), libraries, and in like 1 or 2 per continent you could create memorial centers to keep alive the memories of the suffering created by organized, doctrinal religion.

    Moving past a phase of our cultural development has to include remembering that phase. The church buildings turned to useful purpose will be powerful monuments.



  • War gaming can be fun, but I don’t think DnD is especially geared toward it

    Isn’t like 90% of the rules for DnD just rules for combat and treasure? Literally every single class in DnD is a combat class. And when people talk about their DnD characters they say “I played this Dragonborn Cleric…” or “Multiclassed Tiefling Mage/Rouge” and not “I played this Dwarf that had really good proficiency in Persuasion and ‘Use Rope’”. [Btw is ‘Use Rope’ still a skill in newer DnD editions?].


  • There is no issue with the source other than it not the new york times or the washington post or the bbc

    1. NYT, WP or BBC are also suspect sources, especially when it comes to the Palestine conflict. You will not find me saying anything else.
    2. Issues with the source you cited (that don’t involve it’s Hezbollah affiliation):
      • It’s not the primary source (that appears to be the Haaretz article, but I can’t confirm that, since that is paywalled)
      • It gets the name of one of the parties involved in the conflict wrong (it consistently refers to the IDF as IOF (replacing “Defense” with “Occupation”). I get why they do it (the IDF claims to “defend” an area that they are actually occupying), but that’s not how you do journalism. Nobody thinks that North Korea is a democratic republic, but any news article about it will still refer to it as “DPRK - Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea”. Because that’s its name.

    So pointing out that the source you posted is biased and potentially unreliable is fine. You citing another source (even one cited in the article itself) is completely par for the course. Hell, now I really would like to know, why you chose to post a secondary source when you had the primary source avaiable to you?




  • Actually, no.

    The science is quite precise, if largely theoretical. Neither the article nor the study it is based on are doomerism. If you’d read it you would have found the following paragraph:

    Their results showed that we’re not necessarily headed for certain climate doom. We might follow quite a regular and predictable trajectory, the endpoint of which is a climate stabilization at a higher average temperature point than what we have now.

    Basically they are saying “this new method (which is a very macroscale perspective) does not predict a stabilization at preindustrial climate given the amount of change the system already has experienced. Also if we really want to we can probably kick earth into a runaway greenhouse system”.

    They do not claim that we are already at that point nor that we will inevitably cross it. Only that it is possible for us to do it.