I don't play too much in the way of action RPGs, but it's definitely an annoying thing that tends to pop up in JRPGs, though less so nowadays. Still, I do appreciate being able to dial the difficulty down as an option if I'm enjoying a game, get 30 hours in, and run into one of those two issues. If it's not an option, I'd just drop the game, but it gets annoying when you've sank in a month or so of free time, only for a game to pull that on you.
![User banner]()
hraegsvelmir @ hraegsvelmir @ani.social Posts 0Comments 22Joined 3 mo. ago
hraegsvelmir @ hraegsvelmir @ani.social
Posts
0
Comments
22
Joined
3 mo. ago
I think that comes down to the genre and game. I've definitely played games where I was enjoying the story and wanted to see its conclusion, but couldn't be bothered with a boss rush in the middle of the game. In a similar vein, games with sudden difficulty spikes in the mid- to endgame portion might benefit from it.
At the end of the day, I'm a working adult, trying to fit in having some fun with all the other crap I need to do. I don't have time for games that need me to treat them as a second job to get good enough to make any progress in them, but games with random difficulty spikes or boss rushes that just serve to pad out play time by making you grind for levels or the ideal equipment or skills/summons out of nowhere feel like an annoying bait and switch to me.
It really isn't, in this case. The issue is not the currency being used for the transactions, but rather two companies having a duopoly on processing those transactions that allow them to dictate terms to other people on how they can legally use their money. If there were two similar points of failure in processing cryptocurrency transactions, they would be just as vulnerable to having whoever occupied those two spots throwing their weight around. Sure, I suppose in that situation, companies could take payments to a new wallet easier than they could open new business accounts, and bypass the restrictions temporarily, but it still wouldn't be a viable solution in the long term.
Having just rewatched Jurassic Park the other night for the first time since I was about 6 years old, my takeaway was mostly that the park needed a total overhaul of their EH&S department. Probably every single death was avoidable with less than a day's work to prevent it, starting with the very first scene when they release a raptor into the enclosure. That guy's death could have been avoided by simply
- Installing some rings into the posts on either side of the gate, and securing the shipping container to them to prevent unplanned movement of the container.
- Attaching some support posts to the rear of the container that would dig into the ground, rather than letting the container shift backwards.
- Have a pulley rigged up over the gate that could hook into the top of the door on the container, allowing the crew to lift open the container's door from a safe distance.
And that's literally the first scene. The entire main plot could have been avoided by not permitting a design with so many single points of failure, like only one individual being able to shut down critical safety systems without any additional oversight, and seemingly no fallback systems to account for either incompetent or malicious actors on the island.----
Here's the neat thing, though, they can be the least awful party, while still being absolutely awful and ultimately aiming for essentially the same thing as the most awful party. Just look at all the ghouls in the Democratic Party and associated apparatuses coming out of the woodwork to attack Zohran Mamdani for a damn mayoral race, out of fear that he might expose the lie that the Dems aren't serving the same masters as the GOP and working against the interests of the vast majority of the people in this country. The greatest difference between the two parties, at this point in time, is that the Dems are willing to wait longer to formally install our corporate overlords as our new lords and masters, and they'll wave a gay flag and pay lip service to the plight of minorities if that's what's needed to ultimately achieve the goal. But they will also ruthlessly go after anyone and everyone, within or outside the party, who would threaten to derail their plan and actually represent and advance the interests of the masses, rather than those of the few who aim to sit on thrones made of their own obscene wealth and the human suffering they created to amass said wealth.
You're a frog being slowly boiled alive, calling out to the rest of us that the water is fine and asking us to jump in the pot with you. No thanks.
And the Democrats had 4 years they squandered to put Trump in prison for inciting an insurrection, or find a new candidate to run, yet they chose to do neither.
That's pretty serious.
not caring enough to vote.
Due in no small part to the jackass you're defending and people like him in the DNC showing that they weren't actually interested in anything but their own power and money, even if it meant squandering the opportunity to prevent this very outcome. The same politicians who have proven these people right by putting up no real resistance as they rubber stamped Trump's cabinet picks and policy decisions in Congress, only to wring their hands on TV about how dangerous it is and text me asking for another donation so they could sit on their hands some more.
Get serious.
Ah, yes, the guy who chose to ignore the multiple opportunities presented to him to literally render Trump's return to power impossible, barring a violent uprising, yet who sat on his hands instead is the real victim here. Shame on anyone criticizing our poor new Neville Chamberlain for appeasing fascists while also refusing to even consider ceding power to anyone who would have been willing to seriously put the screws to Trump. Truly, one of the greatest victims of our times.
If you understand perfectly, you've yet to demonstrate this. The ask is to remove superfluous, anti-consumer design elements like always-online connections for single-player games, or shuttering official servers with no mitigation plan for those who wish to play the game after this occurs, and people have asked for changes to these, specific sorts of anti-consumer design choices. Meanwhile, you're over here big brain posting about "That's not a design change! Now, turning a 100-player online battle royale game into a single player JRPG, that would be a design change!" It's no great wonder that you're being treated as either a troll or an idiot when you've manage to misunderstand something so fundamental, while confidently insisting time and again that you alone get it, and everyone is just misguided.
I kind of doubt that Zohran will have the same arc, since he's campaigning directly against the vested interests of the owners of our major media outlets. I could see him becoming an outside force too large for them to ignore, who ultimately forces them to change tactics, though.
At the moment, he's an outlier of a candidate for them to try and beat down, and the mainstream media will fight tooth and nail to keep him that way, since him inspiring a broader insurgency of proper leftwing candidates to challenge "progressive" establishment Dems represents an existential crisis for them.
A successful term as mayor for Zohran could well sound the death knell for them if it leads to either a Tea Party style takeover of the Democrats, or produces enough momentum to lead to a proper third party that unseats the Democrats from their position as the GOP-lite party of controlled opposition. Imagine what could happen if those media organizations had to face a properly funded public broadcasting service, for example, that gained broad purchase amongst the public.
I don't know, you get different vibes in different cities. Not exactly the same thing, but I (a pasty white guy) wear a Brujería hat I bought at a concert around NYC all the time, and the most that will ever happen is somebody asking me if I know what it is/about the band, then telling me how much they like them, or some old religious ladies freaking out about it being the Spanish word for witchcraft. Wearing the same hat in Los Angeles earlier this year, in different subway stations, I had a few cholos just glaring at me the whole time I was there and looking for a fight.
Some cities are a lot more segregated than others to this day, and you get places where you won't be treated well if you're not from the right group. Others, people just stick to themselves, for one reason or another. Like, if your car breaks down in Newburgh, NY, or the wrong part of Newark, NJ, you're probably not getting any help from strangers, and if someone does come to help you, there's a decent enough chance they're trying to either rob you or carjack you. In some cities, about the most someone will do to help you out if you're in trouble is to suggest that you don't belong where you are, and that you ought to reconsider what you're doing there.
They aren’t required to fund him, that’s true,
It's not just about the funding. You also have key figures in the party actively fearmongering against him. A NY senator, Kirsten Gillibrand, did an interview the other day, playing him up as some sort of rabid antisemite and refusing to endorse him. Same with party leadership. If Cuomo or Adams had won, they would have had their endorsements announced and posted everywhere within minutes of the primaries being called, but when a progressive who uses the big, scary s-word wins, they sit on their hands and offer lukewarm statements about how they'll work with him if he wins the election, but they have reservations and don't want to commit to endorsing him. When you have Democrat public officials and high ranking figures in the party refusing to endorse "their" candidate, that can do a lot of damage to their chances amongst those who aren't very politically engaged, or who lack media literacy.
Out of Hochul, Gillibrand, Schumer and Pelosi, I'm not aware of a single one who has actually endorsed him in the race. What happened to the calls for party unity and voting blue no matter who in order to defeat fascism they loved to trot out so much when they recently fielded unpopular, establishment candidates? I guess a little fascism is okay, as long as it's just one city, now?
These sorts of Dems would rather see Sliwa win and start goose-stepping through the streets of NYC with his brownshirt losers than see Zohran win. They know that Zohran winning and having a successful term would be a damning indictment of their own failure to lead and step up to the moment, and the gears are spinning once again for them to do their best to make sure they don't have to deal with that.
Edit: misattributed the interview to Hochul, but the point remains with it being Democratic Senator from NY, rather than the governor.
It really depends, there's just a huge variance in city layout and regional cultures, so going from one to another can completely change things. Someone who likes the way things are in NYC isn't necessarily going to like living in Orlando, Houston or Los Angeles, and won't find the same culture. Heck, even within the same state, they can be pretty different.
That's definitely true for many Republicans, but I think a successful term as mayor for Zohran has potential to really change things for the Democrats. If, after hearing from establishment Democrats for decades that the only way we can change things is so incrementally, not only can we not make progress, but we actually have to accept going backwards pretty often, you have a mayor who delivers some fairly sweeping changes, it could open the eyes of many Democrat voters to the lies that they've been fed by party leadership to excuse themselves for sitting on their hands while things fall apart around them.
Kindly refrain from putting such stupid words in my mouth, and keep them in your own, where it seems they rightly belong, thank you.
You asked about Israel and Hamas, then instantly conflated this particular conflict with a broader conflict to come between Israel and Iran, which are not the same thing. That's beyond moving the goal posts, we're no longer even discussing the same events. You're also conflating Israel with Jews as a whole here. Calling for the state of Israel to no longer exist and calling for all Jewish residents within its borders to be either killed or displaced are two rather distinct things.
I know of no definition in which a single attack in isolation, or merely killing civilians during a war, is considered to constitute genocide. Even if this were the case, the civilian casualties in the many conflicts between Israel, Hamas, and more or less all of Israel's neighbors in the region have been decidedly lopsided. Israel suffers far fewer civilian deaths than those they inflict on others, so even if we were to entertain the notion that Hamas' resistance to Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories constitutes a genocide and we accept that the Iranian regime is in some major capacity responsible for such actions because they provide funding and support to Hamas (which, lol, even Israeli media admits Israel did, too), just going by the casualties, we'd have to conclude that Israel is either a decidedly more genocidal regime, better at genocide, or both.
Israel continues to interfere in the affairs of other sovereign nations, support settlers stealing other peoples' land and is actively engaging in a brutal genocide. If the Israeli state were to be dismantled and Israel ceased to exist as a nation, I could only say that it's past time for it to happen. And before you put more hysterical words in my mouth, note well: Israel no longer existing as a sovereign theocratic ethnostate and the Jews who currently live in the region being in any way harmed are two entirely separate things. Calling for a particular state to no longer exist is not a call for genocide, in and of itself.
Tl;dr: Get lost with your hasbara attempts, they're woefully transparent.
What makes the Israel-Hamas war a genocide and for example, the Vietnam war not be considered a genocide?
Because Vietnam was a war of ideologies, not a land grab intended to wipe out the current occupants so they could be entirely replaced by a "superior, chosen" people not of the ethnicity of the current residents.
This is such a mindblowingly stupid attempt at a gotcha question. Ffs, you literally had over a million Vietnamese fighting on the same side as the US in the ARVN during the course of the war. The belligerent parties in a conflict both being composed of largely the same peoples fighting each other tends to preclude it being described as a genocide.
I wouldn't rule that out, but I also wouldn't jump straight to that conclusion. Spanish news media in this country is beyond screwed, it skews even more right-wing as a rule than English mainstream media, in my opinion. During the 2020 election, I would watch the news on Univision with my mother-in-law sometimes, and would see them just not translate something a democrat said in English that didn't fit their agenda, misrepresent what they said in the translation, or selectively omit things they said to make their remarks sound much more sinister and authoritarian than what they actually said. They were also constantly pushing right-wing conspiracies that had been debunked weeks or months prior, with no mention of their having been disproven.
I would constantly have my mother-in-law coming to me asking about these old ass conspiracies, because with her only knowing Spanish, that would be the first time she heard of them, and she was shocked we weren't freaking out about it.
More leaning to the morons side, despite how Fox likes to portray immigrants as a monolithic group of rabid socialist and commies backing the Dems so they can destroy the constitution and get gulags up and running, a lot of immigrants from Latin America, Africa and the Caribbean have been fairly conservative, in my experience. A lot of them grew up heavily propagandized by right wing regimes in their home countries, many are much more religious than your average American by birth, and others have had negative experiences with nominally left-wing regimes in their home country that they can't get over. The last one can be kind of understandable, but the other two drive me crazy.
There's also another category, "I can leave, but I don't want to leave behind people important to me that would be at significantly more risk than I am." I've got the work experience to head off to any of several fairly comfortable and stable countries on a skilled work visa, and hope that, if push comes to shove, none of my debts I currently have in the US would become obstacles to my permanently settling there. I can more or less fluently speak Spanish and Portuguese, and I can get by fine in French. Within a couple more years, I'll have a degree from a European university completed, and I continue to study other languages, with varying degrees of success.
I'm still hanging around, waiting for my sister-in-law to finish up her degree in another two years so that the three of us could all get out at once, as, despite being a naturalized citizen for more than 20 years, I wouldn't put it past ICE and the current administration to target her just for having darker skin and a slight accent to her English. I'd rather be here where I can watch out for her and raise hell ASAP if something were to happen, than be posted up in a new flat in France or something, and suddenly realize I can't get in contact with her at all.
There's also the simple fact that, for those who don't have the means to legally obtain a visa, I'm unaware of any nation that has started accepting asylum cases from the US on the grounds of the current administration's actions and policies. Yeah, I could walk to the border with Canada, or overstay on a tourist trip in Europe, but then you face the very real possibility of being caught and sent back, straight into the hands of the very people you are trying to escape, clearly marking yourself out as a dissident of some form. This is leaving aside all the issues you would face as an undocumented immigrant in a foreign nation. I sure don't have the funds to just show up in Ireland or Portugal and be able to get myself somewhere to stay indefinitely, clothe and feed myself, even assuming I find work within the first few months. I don't know anyone there that could help me land on my feet.
Getting out, and more importantly, being able to assure you can stay out, is not as simple a task as people who haven't seriously looked into it might think.
Lots of people in Brazil and many Spanish a speaking companies would disagree with you unfortunately. It's incredibly embedded in those countries, to the point where WhatsApp will often be the primary, and sometimes only, point of contact for a business. At least it's not that bad here.
And even for those that do have email and internet access, rural America isn't exactly known for having robust infrastructure or government programs to respond to disasters, so they could quite likely find themselves unable to access their email in the aftermath of a disaster, anyway.