Lurker > WTGHookshot

TheGoldenEel posted...

Lmfao at this dudes continued example being lugging around his gaming systems everywhere

Not sure what's so funny? I quite literally do usually lug my gaming systems around everywhere. That's what I do at friends and family: play games with them (or in the case of, say, my parents, I play games after they go to bed). Not just gaming systems, either. Board games, specific card games, yard games, etc. Heck, when I was in my early twenties, it wasn't even just the game systems themselves but TVs and such, because my friends didn't make enough money back then to afford more than one TV.

For work, I also have to lug around 3 separate laptops, due to cyber security reasons: 1 that is for my company, 2 for clients of ours that I need access to their network but whose cyber security requirements don't allow outside technology to access their network so they force us to use laptops they give to us (and they almost didn't even allow that... for a while, they were trying to force us to have to use desktop computers that were assigned to us and stationed in their office, which is an hour and a half drive away).

TheGoldenEel posted...

I mean, the idea is to moving forward design cities so that cars are not necessary.

its not going to happen overnight

And what about people who don't live in cities and don't want to live in cities?

That's fine for the cities themselves and those who want to live in cities. It makes a ton of sense there, but not everywhere.

MarthGoomba posted...

Walk or bike around town, train if you wanna go long distance

Walking and biking is fine if you are traveling light. They are not good if you are traveling with heavy items or a large amount of items, though. For instance, good luck walking back with that new refrigerator you bought from Home Depot without being able to put it in a truck. Have fun towing an entire trailer behind your bike to go over to a friend's house and bring your gaming systems and suitcase.

And as for trains, same issue: hope you make a ton of money because they charge extra for transporting large/many items on trains. If I had to take a train to visit my buddy in Georgia (from New York), the cost would have been huge, as I had my PS2, PS3, PS4, luggage for 1 week, and laptop... and I came back with all of that, plus a half dozen Google Wifi devices (he upgraded to the current version and found out the old ones were incompatible, whereas my place still uses the old ones), a laptop he gave me, a guitar he broke that he gave me to fix up, and numerous other items. I had driven down, so it was easy for me: just put that stuff in the trunk and unused seats of my car to transport and way, way cheaper than shipping that stuff between locations (especially because of the insurance for those items, considering how expensive they are... whereas me driving with them in the vehicle with me, I can keep them safe and cushioned and have more respect for them than some shipping worker handling boxes with unknown contents and no connection to what's inside).

I get wanting to push that, but it doesn't make sense for every type of situation or lifestyle.

FL81 posted...

This is actually a good thing because it means you'll be more likely to see an actual doctor than rely on Google searches for health advice.

This. (Though Google searches aren't a bad thing for smaller symptoms... But you have to use appropriate resources like Mayo Clinic, WebMD, and other affiliated medical sites where information is to be fact-checked by medical professionals. Reddit is not a reliable source.)
radical_rhino posted...

Yeah, just take 3 hours out of your day and spend $300 to go to an urgent care. Thats better than maybe getting some useful advice from a quick internet search.

Nothing wrong with doing quick internet searches if you use more reliable sites than reddit. Reddit is a social media site, not a medically-affiliated site. It can have doctors, nurses, and other medical experts posting on it, sometimes giving good advice, but it is also not the intention of the site and therefore is not properly vetted to make sure the information is accurate.

AverageDude9 posted...

Does the Steam Deck have any advantage over the Asus Rog Ally Handheld? Or does the Asus Rog Ally surpass the Steam Deck To The Point where it's useless?

From the reviews I've read, the Ally is great but lacks some of the finer points of the Steam Deck like the two touchpads that are used for more customization options. It also doesn't have native Steam support like the Steam Deck does, so you need to customize your experience more manually and you need to manually check if your games will properly work with it compared to having it be "Steam Verified," "Playable," or "Not Supported."

TheGoldenEel posted...

Getting everywhere you need to go without a car?

The places I want to go are far from me, and that poses a bit of a problem for using alternative means of travel:
-My time is limited. I don't have time to waste being stuck on a bus or a train waiting constantly between various stops. Nor can I travel that quickly via bicycle. That extra time is time not spent at my destination with friends/family, which is the whole point of those travels in the first place.
-When I travel, I travel with a lot of stuff. For instance, when I go to family/friends, I bring multiple game systems, my laptop, my bags with clothes and toiletries, and sometimes more (like yard games, blankets/pillows, guitars/amps, etc.). Walking to a train stop/bus stop with all that is not feasible. Neither is riding a bike (even with a little tow-behind trailer). Additionally, even if it was feasible, the cost of transportation space on a bus/train comes at an additional price, which wouldn't make it feasible.
-It wouldn't really be economically feasible in rural areas to have public transportation as the only means of getting around. For instance, my aunt and uncle used to live 15 miles outside of the nearest town. Having a bus drive routine visits 15 miles outside of town for maybe 20 people isn't exactly efficient. So, if they limited the bus routes to only very specific times in a day, then it is a huge inconvenience trying to plan the entire day around those few available times that the bus is coming through. It is easier in areas of high population density, but becomes a bit impractical in areas of low population density. And you can't force people to live only in high population density areas... There are people that don't want to (and therefore purposely choose not to) live in high population density areas for a reason.

There will always need to be some sort of on-demand type travel with large capacity for storage. We absolutely can do a lot to reduce the use of individual vehicles when they aren't needed, but we can't eliminate it entirely (...unless we can somehow learn to teleport people and there belongings).

MarthGoomba posted...

Getting rid of [humans] should be the future

Fixed that for you.

If a civil war erupts and you have no way out of it, who would you side with?

No side. And if any side comes trying to recruit me to their side, I will decline. If they don't accept my declination without violence (i.e., trying to force me to their side), then it's going to be their end or my end because I refuse to join sides. Leave me the hell out of it.

ai123 posted...

As far as we know for certain, humans are the only things that can observe, contemplate and respond to the universe.

I have little doubt that there is some other life far away, but you probably wouldn't like them any better.

It would depend. My biggest issue with humans is that they are the root cause for the majority of their own problems. I don't have any issues with other life on Earth. If that other life far away isn't creating the majority of its own species' problems, then I wouldn't have any issue with that species.

ai123 posted...

The reason most people want to reduce negative effects from humans is to make life sustainable/better for humans.

Which is my point of human exceptionalism: wanting to get rid of other living things is to make like "better" for humans. The focus is constantly on humans, as if they are the center of the universe.

DnDer posted...

No pitbulls would mean no pitbull attacks.

Make breeding pitbulls illegal and let the currently living ones die their natural deaths. Eventually no pitbulls, and thus, no pitbull attacks.

That'll achieve your target goal of making sure there's eventually not another attack.

And yet, when I say:

"No humans would mean no negative effects of humans.

Make human reproduction illegal and let the currently living ones die their natural deaths. Eventually no humans, and thus, no negative effects of humans.

That'll achieve everyone's target goal of making sure there's eventually no negative effect of humans."

I get met with derision. Why is that?

Nothing in defense specifically of pitbulls, mind you. Just commenting more on the "human exceptionalism" of it all, that a comment like yours could be a widely accepted viewpoint but then when I suggest the same thing for humans, it is attacked as being offensive, psychotic, etc.

34 and I have no opinion either way. The biggest thing for me is just getting sick of those who are anti-woke and rattle on about it and those who are woke and rattle on about it. Like, I just don't care.

I mean, that's just my biggest stance all around on most things: I just don't care for the most part.

TheOtherMike posted...

There is a massive difference between breeds of animals and populations of humans, not the least of which is the concept of human rights.

Which I point out in the following portion of the post: humans being selective of applying morals/standards to itself compared to non-human things. "Concept of humans rights." Where are "plants' rights"? Where are "dog rights"? Where are "water rights" (as in the rights given to water, not the rights given to certain humans to do with water as they choose)?

You people really need to stop trotting out this analogy as if it's relevant. It isn't. It's wildly racist.

Race has nothing to do with it. You can have selective traits bred repeatedly in humans that has nothing to do with things like skin color. For instance, older militaristic nations like Sparta would selectively breed based on their body types and what would make good soldiers. Nobility in feudal times would only marry and breed with other nobility. Race comes into things like Hitler's Aryan purity eugenics or selective breeding by slave owners in chattel slavery systems, but those aren't the only times that selective breeding has occurred within human history. So, I don't know why you think race is the only trait that corresponds to selective breeding within humanity.

greenjeans posted...

With cause, it is not fucked up

Would you still state that it wouldn't be fucked up to erase certain "breeds" of humans from existence, if given cause? Whether it be something like "all Swedes," "all Republicans," "all people with Cystic Fibrosis or carry the gene for cystic fibrosis," "all felons and their offspring," or similar? After all, humans are just animals.
Pikachuchupika posted...

It's our fault they exist in the first place. Certain dog breeds do not need to exist. Pitbulls is one of them. Bulldogs too I believe. They're the ones that can't breathe properly right?

Humans don't need to exist either and it's our fault they exist in the first place.

By the way, this isn't me standing in defense of pitbulls. I don't have any particular positive or negative emotions or opinions of them. This is just me pointing out the selective nature of humanity where they apply certain morals/characteristics to other non-human things but then don't apply those same morals/characteristics to humans themselves. For instance, humans try to prevent invasive species from spreading, yet humans themselves are the largest known invasive species there is. However, they don't try preventing them from spreading; just the opposite, they try spreading them throughout the world and even are looking into spreading them throughout space.

Reading through this topic, it just reminds me that humanity was a mistake. I don't know how you can walk away from this topic and not think that.

IceCreamOnStero posted...

Nice idea but like a lot of good hearted economic propositions, they're merely bandaids on the gaping wound that is capitalism.

It doesn't matter how hard you make it to hoard wealth so long as the whole system is based around and exclusively encourages hoarding wealth.

You can't patch out core features.

Which is why trying to "fix" any economic system will just be bandaids.

Like you said, you can't patch out core features, which means you can't patch out core features of humanity (its emotions), meaning its doomed to repeat itself regardless of what economic system you switch to... humanity will just "screw it up" again.

FolkenRawr posted...

My man
Pretty sure we've posted enough to not be surprised. Punk fan yes?

I am a fan of a lot of music, but I gravitate to Punk, Pop Punk, Post Hardcore, a bit of Metal, Grunge, Nu Metal, etc.

Pretty much, if you can see it being on a Tony Hawk's Pro Skater soundtrack or airing on something like SiriusXM' Octane, Turbo, Faction, or Liquid Metal, I probably like it.

I have a lot of favorites but one I haven't seen posted here that I love even more than the original:

https://youtu.be/xq0cC8M4Jmc

FolkenRawr posted...

Lmao that is PERFECT.
I love Alex Melton's shtick, which is basically 'if Blink-182 wrote...'

A fellow Alex Melton fan, I see? Glad to be in like company.

uwnim posted...

It really isn't though. Like sure, if you think creating an AGI is impossible, I can see why you'd dismiss it. But if one created, there are very good reasons to believe it would go badly for humans.

That sounds like a good thing in my books. Personally, I'm not dismissing an AGI being created as impossible; I am welcoming said AGI to be created.

ScazarMeltex posted...

Fair enough, I think I'm just overly cynical because I live in Missouri and our infrastructure here is shit because the state let's it all just fall apart before they fix it.

That's not an exclusive-to-Missouri thing.

I live in NY and a study about 5-10 years back ranked our bridges into 3 categories: A. In good shape, no additional repairs needed in the short term. B. In moderate shape, repairs/reconstruction needed in next 5 years. C. In bad shape, repairs/reconstruction needed as soon as practical. The breakdown if I remember correctly was something like 10%, 20%, and 70%, respectively. Which is why, if you live in NY, we've been seeing a ton of bridge repairs/reconstruction in the past 10 years.

My cousins in West Virginia live on a road that is slipping down the mountain side. The road is normally barely a single car's width as is, but they've lost a quarter of the road in places. Apparently, according to my cousins, the road won't be fixed until it has slipped to the point the road can't be used any longer.

Error1355 posted...

This doesn't seem accurate for emergencies like this.

Even for emergencies like this. Like I said, they can fast track it quicker than that, but if they do, let me tell you, I wouldn't trust it personally.

For instance, they could just pull up the old drawings/designs on record and use that, to cut out the engineering side of things and speed things up (but then you will still have the flaws it had before). They can maybe use an on-call contractor, but they still need to know the work and be able to prep in advance. The construction itself takes a while. For instance, letting concrete properly cure takes close to a month on its own (or else you lose strength in the concrete).

radical_rhino posted...

I was going to say multiple years, but theres probably no more urgent a road repair than a collapsed section of the 95.

Even if it's urgent, it's still going to take at least a year.

As an engineer who has done work with the state and federal governments, the engineering design takes quite a while, the red tape of the government approving takes a ton of time, and getting the right contractor on board takes a ton of time. And all of those steps have to go in sequence.

I'm curious how the tanker truck caught fire in the first place.

wackyteen posted...

Fixed that for you

Exactly. Fixing structural issues with highways takes a long time.

radical_rhino posted...

RIP everyones commutes for the next 4 months

...try at least, at the very least, one year. Designing a replacement section alone could take 4 months of engineering (at least). Then throw in putting out requests for proposals on the construction, vetting the bids, hiring the contractor to do the work, and then doing the work itself... Yeah, you are looking at probably close to a year at the very least (unless they rush job it, which I wouldn't feel safe with when you already have had an incident).

Jonny2284 posted...

The guy could chain eat steak on livestream until his heart gives out and they'd still somehow believe it was a conspiracy against him and act accordingly

Probably assume someone poisoned the steak with an untraceable poison.

R1masher posted...

Naw, its the invasion mechanic that they dont implement

Please see posts #8 and #9.

Not everybody likes the invasion mechanic.

The Surge 2 is my buddy's favorite Souls-like (even over FromSoft's games) because it lacks the invasion mechanic.

YoungMutual posted...

What they don't get is that they always try to turn the combat into a halfway point between souls and a hack and slash.

Also, they don't focus on exploration or level design, which is key in souls game.

So they don't understand what makes these games good in the slightest, at least most of them

Same response as #8:

If you want to play Souls, then play Souls.

You see the slow methodical pacing in FromSoft's Souls games as a positive. There are others out there that tend to see it as a negative. So, these "Souls ripoffs" are trying to do something slightly different to appeal to people like the latter, rather than trying to appeal to people like you who already think Souls is practically perfect as-is.

You see the exploration/level design in FromSoft's Souls games as a positive. There are others out there that tend to see it as a negative. So, these "Souls ripoffs" are trying to do something slightly different to appeal to people like the latter, rather than trying to appeal to people like you who already think Souls is practically perfect as-is.

It's not necessarily that these developers "don't understand what makes these games good in the slightest." It's that "good" is a subjective term and what you find "good" might not be what someone else finds "good." These developers are changing things to make something they find "good" and the audience they are targeting finds "good." You just might not be part of that audience (and that's okay... just like not everybody is going to be part of FromSoft's audience).

Doe posted...

There is way too much dialogue in just about every souls ripoff. One thing that makes FromSoft environments effective is the lack of real human contact or conversation. The result is you focus a lot on the details in the world/level and items and you're really happy when you find someone who speaks in the game. Meanwhile in so many Souls ripoffs I'm waiting for people to shut up.

If you want to play Souls, then play Souls.

Personally, I like "Souls ripoffs" that do that type of stuff because that's what I feel holds Souls back. You see the lack of dialogue in FromSoft's Souls games as a positive. Others like myself tend to see it as a negative. So, these "Souls ripoffs" are trying to do something slightly different to appeal to people like me, rather than trying to appeal to people like you who already think Souls is practically perfect as-is.

uwnim posted...

If we create a superhuman artificial general intelligence, then we are almost certainly fucked as a species.

Even without that, humans are fucked as a species. They are their own worst enemy.