Lurker > _AdjI_

Kyuubi4269 posted...

The point is you don't teach people how to do stuff only when it's already become necessary.

You also don't teach them how to do stuff when it's likely to be dangerous due to their age and there's no need to do it now. At 9, she's got at least 7 years before she'll be needing to gas up her own vehicle. Presuming a fillup every two weeks, that's another 182 opportunities to get her to do it.

It's also not like pumping gas is likely to be urgently necessary when that time comes. Once she starts driving, it's likely that she'll have a parent with her while she practices, and gassing up can easily be incorporated into that practice. She shouldn't go off on a long-distance road trip solo without learning how to gas up, certainly, but that's very obviously a bad idea and there's no reason to jump to that possibility.

GRTooCool posted...

Unless of course they implement a device on everyone's phone where they opt in to receive random calls, just to chat.

Which would be pretty redundant, given that things like chatroulette and omegle already exist for that purpose.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

TsC_PoLiTiKz posted...

Anyone who praises the requirement for people to have car insurance is essentially just praising a tax on poor people. Actually, no. You're praising the idea of making someone totally helpless and possibly giving them jail-time due to the fact that they're poor.

#Morality

"You know how we can make people get car insurance!? Take their license so they can't work anymore!"

Americans, man. We're fucking dumb; we cry about injustices against people, then praise injustices when they benefit us. Yay!

That's not really the issue, the issue is insurance companies taking advantage of the mandatory nature to charge vast profit margins (or just plain old price people off the road).

Pretty much. The car insurance industry is certainly not without issues, but the fact of the matter is that **** happens on the road, and somebody's gotta pay for it. Mandating insurance ensures that everyone ends up contributing to that pot based on how likely they are to be pulling from it (ideally), so the money exists for the necessary repairs.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

jkdarlow posted...

But why would her mother let help, its highly irresponsible, hell most pretty much all fuel stations around here have labels telling you to keep your children in the car.

I'd say it's more irresponsible to never teach your kids anything then kick them out as soon as it's legal.

Well, sure, but that's not the only alternative here. There's a considerable amount of time between being 9 and being old enough to be legally kicked out, plus there's no reason to make the jump between "not teaching her child how to pump gas at age 9" and "kicking her child out at 16 without teaching her anything." What an absurd comment.

Dunno about TV, but there is a board game out there that's designed to teach programming concepts to kids:

http://www.robotturtles.com/

It's very basic, but that's to be expected. You're not going to be able to teach a programming language to a kid who's just beginning to learn a spoken language. The best you can manage is to introduce the basic organizational concepts. Many other games also do this, as does the Lego Mindstorms line, and really, I think it's a subject that's better taught interactively than through video. I don't think a TV show is really needed.

Don't try to be objective and innocuous about it. Acknowledge that you'd enjoy seeing some boobs if female toplessness were normalized, because everybody expects that of you. Trying to suggest that you wouldn't be sexually aroused by a part of the body that's typically considered to be sexually arousing is just going to make you seem disingenuous. Therefore, just acknowledge and accept that. Once that's out of the way, then make a point of calling out the ridiculous double standard, how absurd it is that the nipples have been singled out as being the evil scary bit that should never be shown, and other non-sexual reasons for being okay with toplessness.

Being sexually aroused by an attractive topless person is perfectly normal, for both men and women. If women start going topless as often as men do, men can be expected to enjoy that toplessness sexually. That's not a bad thing. If women can handle being aroused by topless men, men can handle being aroused by topless women, and that shouldn't be cited as a reason for keeping toplessness illegal.

NejiHyuga900 posted...

And when was it ever illegal to ride a bike on a sidewalk?

It is in a good many places, unless it's a designated multi-use path. For good reason, too, given that riding a bike on the sidewalk is pretty dangerous to pedestrians unless you're going so slowly that you might as well not be bothering with the bike.

And they wonder why people block ads.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

darkknight109 posted...

Yes, he was wrong.

Generally it's considered bad manners to swear around kids (yes, even in a public space). All she was asking for was for him to mind his manners and he followed it up with an insult.

She was in no position to challenge his behaviour as a stranger.

Sure she was. You don't have to know somebody personally to have a better grasp of manners than they do.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

GRTooCool posted...

Nope.

No girl/woman should ever get in your way of doing what you love to do as a hobby on your free time.

This. Compromise in a relationship is one thing, and I can see a significant other having grounds to complain if you spend like 10 hours a day playing games and not doing things they want to do (or at least doing things you can do together, and assuming they themselves don't like playing multiplayer video games), but absolutist ultimatums are pretty much poison for any relationship unless you're a complete and total doormat.

No one "forbids" me to do anything and remains a person I want to continue existing in my life.

Sounds about right. If I'm not spending enough time with her, that's one thing (provided those time demands are reasonable), but dictating what I can and cannot do in free time is no bueno, except maybe if she's concerned about addiction (and even then, there are far better ways to express that concern than to outright forbid me from playing).

DPsx7 posted...

I'd say no because it totally depends on the game.

PMarth2002 posted...

Steep learning curve is fine if the information is presented in a way thats not overwhelming.

These.

YOUHAVENOHOPE posted...

I don't think either way is technically "correct" I think it's up to personal preference

It was officially decided a few years back that leaving it out should be the standard. I rejected that decision with every fibre of my heart, soul, and mind.

Revelation34 posted...

No they did that because some cops are too lazy.

I don't think it's really "lazy" to increase ticket revenue by a couple orders of magnitude while reducing operating costs and freeing up cops to fight more serious crime than speeding. That's just being efficient.

ClarkDuke posted...

Oh, ok. So he pulled a Zeus, did zero research and spoke out of fear.

Now, to be fair, just about everyone was scared of AIDS in 1989 (because it was ****ing terrifying), and researching it was very hard (both because the scientific literature on the disease was limited and because the Internet didn't exist in anything remotely resembling its current form). Being ignorant and scared was pretty understandable. Letting that ignorance and fear drive him to be that much of an asshole, however, is much less forgivable.

As far as I'm concerned, buying an EA game only makes sense if you're happy with the state of the game as it currently stands, since future development is never guaranteed. I can only think of three I've ever bought. One was Minecraft (not formally EA, but basically the same model), one was Factorio (which was a fantastic decision because I love that game), and the third was Melody's Escape (a rhythm game that was reasonably entertaining and I don't think has seen much by way of updates since I bought it, though apparently it's out of EA now). No regrets yet.

AllstarSniper32 posted...

_AdjI_ posted...

AllstarSniper32 posted...

It's only bad to people who obviously overused it.

If it's so easy to overuse, is that really overusing it? Or would it be more accurate to say that people who use it less are underusing it?

If you're setting up your gambits to handle any situation that comes up and then complain about it, you're overusing it.

Even if you don't use gambits at all you're not under using it, because it's an optional function.

You could say the same thing about any game mechanic, though. You can complete SM64 almost without pressing the A button, does that mean that those who press the A button are overusing it? Or that "just don't jump" is a reasonable response to somebody finding the game too easy?

Of course, it's obviously not quite that clear-cut. There's often a very a fine line between reasonable use of mechanics and exploiting them to game-breaking levels, much how there's a fine line between reasonably neglecting a mechanic and deliberately avoiding it for the purposes of a challenge run. Personally, I haven't played FFXII to be able to say for myself how easily one can automate the game with Gambits without specifically setting out to break the game by doing so. Maybe doing that is overusing the mechanic. Maybe not doing that is underusing the mechanic. In a general sense, though, if somebody is saying "this game is boring if you use this mechanic to a reasonable extent," I don't think "you should use that mechanic less" is necessarily a valid defense of the game.

Zeus posted...

_AdjI_ posted...

Zeus posted...

Given that it's not enough to colonize Mars, I need more than that. Otherwise how am I going to set up a rival planet?

You don't need to colonize Mars, so...

Clearly we have very different definitions in regards to the word "need," sir.

So it would seem.

AllstarSniper32 posted...

It's only bad to people who obviously overused it.

If it's so easy to overuse, is that really overusing it? Or would it be more accurate to say that people who use it less are underusing it?

Mead posted...

Is Vice not considered a reliable source?

Not when it disagrees with their preconceived notions of reality.

Mead posted...

Wii is like 95% shovelware

That doesn't really mean much without comparing the remaining 5%. A console with only 5% of a 2000-game library being good still has more good games than a console with 25% of a 200-game library being good.

The Popo posted...

I think GCN is better than the Wii overall, but the Wii has some gems on it. Both Galaxy games are absolutely fantastic.

Pretty much this. The Wii gets a bad rep because of the shovelware, but there are some amazing games on it, like the Galaxies and Xenoblade.

Zeus posted...

Keep in mind that 90% of hereditary wealth is gone by the third generation and you're adding 3 generations on top of that.

While true, that's typically not starting from numbers as large as $150 billion. He's got four kids; if we assume that each of those kids has four kids of their own, the third generation's going to be 16 kids, for a total of 20 descendants up to that point. Evenly divided for the sake of easy math, that means $7.5 billion each, or enough money that they could each spend $225,000 every single day of a 90-year life and still have $100 million left over. And that's without accounting for any sort of investment return or interest, or the fact that his kids have already lived part of their lives without spending $225,000 every single day.

Six generations might be an exaggeration, especially if we keep assuming 4 kids each (that'd be a total of 1,324 descendants), but I very, very highly doubt 90% of his fortune will be gone by the third generation. That's just more money than anyone could spend that quickly without deliberately trying to waste it.

Zeus posted...

Given that it's not enough to colonize Mars, I need more than that. Otherwise how am I going to set up a rival planet?

You don't need to colonize Mars, so...

The dev actually consulted CH1's community before starting on this one to see if they'd rather see the game financed by microtransactions or a flat cost, and people generally liked the flat cost idea better. The devs also really didn't like how financing it via microtransactions meant the whole thing was primarily being financed on the backs of whales, many of whom have mental problems like gambling addictions that result in that unchecked spending. Ergo, the game's not F2P. Don't like it, don't buy it. Those who do like it can buy it.

As for whether or not it's worth $30, I did get a pretty solid amount of entertainment out of CH1. I think $30 is a bit steep, so I'm not exactly jumping at this just yet, but we'll see how it turns out. I'll probably end up grabbing it in a sale, unless it never gets a sale, in which case I'll only go for it if it turns out really well.

Krow_Incarnate posted...

Oh, bulls***. They'll make a profit even if they sold the game at $5.

You really have no way of knowing that, unless you have access to the studio's complete financial records. Furthermore, you don't really get to decide how much profit they want to make. They are free to price the game however they feel will give them the results they want, and you are free to not buy it if you feel it's too expensive. You are not entitled to get the game for free just because it would be viable under a F2P model.

Krow_Incarnate posted...

I mean, feel free to convince me at any time that this is somehow more than a glorified mobile game. I'll wait.

Why can't a mobile game be worth $30? Plenty of mobile games have genuine work put into them, even if they tend to be buried by lazy cash grabs. The only reason you balk at the idea is because other studios have found that more subtle, manipulative pricing schemes like microtransactions and loot boxes tend to prove more profitable than upfront costs, so F2P has become the industry standard.

This is not a matter of a developer deciding that their game deserves more money than all those other games like it. Quite the contrary, in fact: this is a developer choosing to rely on honest, upfront pricing instead of a sneakier model that would probably make them more money. And you're getting mad at them for that. Stop it.

Sahuagin posted...

_AdjI_ posted...

limiting the concept of racism only to race is extremely arbitrary

arbitrary...? limiting X-ism to X is the opposite of arbitrary...

Hence I prefaced it with "the concept of." The core idea of racism is discriminating against somebody on the basis of their racial identity. Racial identity is a whole lot more than skin deep, though, incorporating culture and ethnicity as well. Skin colour and other obvious physical features are a tiny, fairly meaningless component of that, and when the basis for what you're saying is meaningless, that means what you're saying is arbitrary.

wwinterj25 posted...

Unfortunately not and that's why the word has lost a lot of meaning.

How has that caused it to lose meaning? If you're discussing racial discrimination and somebody brings up an example where the discriminated party has the same skin colour, but is still subject to functionally identical discrimination for hailing from a different place, is it not being arbitrarily pedantic to say that doesn't belong in the discussion? That the treatment of Irish or Polish immigrants doesn't belong in the same discussion as the racism faced by Chinese immigrants during the same period?

Quite simply, why do you think it *shouldn't* be used as a blanket term for racial, cultural, and ethnic discrimination? What value do you see in having a term that applies exclusively to racial discrimination when there's no such term for those other, functionally-identical elements? If you're going to argue against the evolution of language, you have to argue why the language shouldn't evolve in a certain way, not just state that it's not the term's present denotation.

McSame_as_Bush posted...

_AdjI_ posted...

McSame_as_Bush posted...

Scots are a race?

In the absence of a good term for "prejudicial discrimination on the basis of culture or ethnicity," and given that limiting the concept of racism only to race is extremely arbitrary, close enough.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/scotophobia

Huh. I stand by my point in a general sense, but I learned a new word today. Cool.

wwinterj25 posted...

Translated: I'm wrong sorry guys.

Is this really the first time you've seen "racism" used as a blanket term? And more importantly, what reason do you have to object to its use as such?

McSame_as_Bush posted...

Scots are a race?

In the absence of a good term for "prejudicial discrimination on the basis of culture or ethnicity," and given that limiting the concept of racism only to race is extremely arbitrary, close enough.

DPsx7 posted...

This is why people shouldn't date...

notsureifserious.jpg

ClarkDuke posted...

Why would Princess Diana have AID's, ok?

http://images.archant.co.uk/polopoly_fs/1.5182765.1504687422!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_630/image.jpg

The significance of that image is somewhat lost on a modern audience, but when it was taken in 1989, it was a huge deal. That picture was taken in the Midmay Clinic, one of the handful of HIV hospitals in Britain. That man died of AIDS a couple weeks later. The stigma around HIV/AIDS at the time was so bad that banks wouldn't loan money to employees of that clinic, bricks were periodically thrown through the windows, and many of the clinic's patients were completely estranged. And Diana shook his hand because she felt that showing compassion and humanity to victims of AIDS was more important than fearing them; a nearly unprecedented attitude to have at the time.

Trump suggested she had AIDS because he was ignorant and afraid.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Looks like Scotland, buncha drunks whining about stupid shit.

Oh hey, an Englishman being racist toward Scots. That's new.

Rasmoh posted...

The amount of support out there for other things that would fall under the purview of bodily autonomy such as drug legalization, suicide, or self-mutilation is non-existent in comparison.

Drug legalization has plenty of support, assisted suicide is gaining a solid foothold in many places (though more often than not, suicide is a consequence of mental illness and therefore not a competently-made decision, which is why it's prevented in other circumstances), and self-mutilation is similarly accepted when it's not a consequence of mental illness (i.e. piercings and tattoos are very different things from cutting).

That doesn't sound like a very effective calculator.

Cacciato posted...

GanonsSpirit posted...

Should have named her Amaryca since she was born on the 4th of July.

Sounds like an antibiotic.

I would be 100% guessing on a "Drug Brand or 2018 Kid's Name?" quiz.

They can still be used to pay for stuff, but in the majority of cases they're worth quite a bit more than face value to collectors, so it'd be pretty stupid to use them as cash.

LittleRoyal posted...

Though my mom won...

What, you're pregnant now?

Krow_Incarnate posted...

People sure as hell don't salute the flag from their TV or stand up from their couch for the damn thing.

This is a point that I hadn't considered and I'm now very amused by all the hypocrisy.

OhhhJa posted...

I mean obviously feeling strongly enough about something to kneel and create widespread media attention to it is probably not a neutral statement firmly planted in the middle of respect and disrespect.

Why wouldn't it be? You're taking a very dichotomous (or I guess maybe trichotomous now) view here, and I'm not sure why. One can respect one's country while also feeling that it needs to step up its game.

OhhhJa posted...

_AdjI_ posted...

Not showing pride=/=disrespecting.

So you think that statement equates to respect? Lol

You think not disrespecting something equates to respecting it?

As Jim Sterling put it, maybe they'd have more luck if they spent less money on lawyers and more money on actual artists to help them develop something they actually could trademark. They don't exactly need much more luck, given how wildly successful PUBG has been, but all these battles to protect their IP are pretty pointless when they haven't actually developed any intellectual properties to protect.

I saw the headline. Seems dumb.

Not showing pride=/=disrespecting.

Doctor Foxx posted...

_AdjI_ posted...

keyblader1985 posted...

I read that when the deal was struck, Roseanne's kids locked her out of her social media accounts, specifically to avoid this exact situation. Then they later changed their minds.

That wouldn't surprise me.

Those kids are smart and were doing well until they let her back on. I mean she did that photo shoot dressed as Hitler, eating fried chicken. Maybe that shoot was the Ambien too

I wouldn't be surprised if they relented just to prove to her that she couldn't be trusted, since I'm sure she denied that it'd be a problem.

Complexity in a story can be fun, but not if it gets in the way of the actual game, which is always a risk. In particular, if you need to break the immersion of the gameplay in order to tell the story, it's probably too complex. That said, I'm perfectly fine with things like Warcraft that have loads of extra-game lore to peruse and flesh out the universe, so long as it isn't necessary to enjoy the story as presented in-game.

papercup posted...

What country did I steal?

And that's why it's clearly facetious.

keyblader1985 posted...

I read that when the deal was struck, Roseanne's kids locked her out of her social media accounts, specifically to avoid this exact situation. Then they later changed their minds.

That wouldn't surprise me.

OhhhJa posted...

_AdjI_ posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Chewster posted...

Even if you are offended by the racial component it's laughable to compare it to Roseanne's post, which is less a joke and more a straight-up racial slur. That's what it is when you call a black person an ape, and that's much more generally offensive because it really has nothing to do with their character or actions. It's something you say when you don't like somebody because they're black (unless you're really ignorant of what it means, but I doubt that Roseanne didn't know what she was doing)

Islam is a part of someone's character, not their race, thus calling muslims apes is attacking their character, not a racial slur.

It's kind of alarming how "it's not technically racism if it's religious discrimination!" has become a widespread defense in place of actually addressing such criticisms and not deflecting the issue.

I mean... leftists are usually fine with religious discrimination so long as it's Christians

That doesn't really have anything to do with what I said, nor is it particularly accurate (protip: saying somebody can't cite their religion as a basis for discriminating against people isn't discrimination).

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Chewster posted...

Even if you are offended by the racial component it's laughable to compare it to Roseanne's post, which is less a joke and more a straight-up racial slur. That's what it is when you call a black person an ape, and that's much more generally offensive because it really has nothing to do with their character or actions. It's something you say when you don't like somebody because they're black (unless you're really ignorant of what it means, but I doubt that Roseanne didn't know what she was doing)

Islam is a part of someone's character, not their race, thus calling muslims apes is attacking their character, not a racial slur.

It's kind of alarming how "it's not technically racism if it's religious discrimination!" has become a widespread defense in place of actually addressing such criticisms and not deflecting the issue.

I've actually steered clear of solar panels for exactly that reason. I like having to build more complex infrastructure than "here's some power because sun." It's undeniably convenient, but I kinda like it my way better.

Zeus posted...

They literally knew that going into the project. It's kind of silly to go into a project with somebody who is controversial on social then dropping them because they're controversial on social.

The primary difference being that nobody cared about her when she wasn't on TV. Her social media activity is naturally going to generate more controversy when people care about her than when they don't. They should probably have warned her about her conduct before starting the project, but at the same time, she's an adult and should have been able to figure that out for herself.

yutterh posted...

Krazy_Kirby posted...

Yellow posted...

Krazy_Kirby posted...

"take away guns! they are horrible!!"

The first time in how many years a gun is useful

i saw two other stories in the past week where a gun was useful. one, an off duty cop near a school, the other a citizen at a restaurant.

those stories don't get the same attention

Wasn't there a huge news story recently about two civilians taking down a crazed gunmen at a restraunt?

There was indeed.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Mead posted...

Since when did kneeling become a sign of disrespect

When context.

Being defiant is disrespecting order.

Yep, better not do anything defiant in a country that claims to value the concept of personal freedom of expression.

In my last big modpack (I did a smaller one with friends that only had a couple mods), I got my power from a combination of extrautilities nether star generators and RFtools spawners and shields to make a Wither farm. That setup had ample room to expand (I had one spawner going and the room I built had space for at least 5), and I was already producing a couple million RF/t (in addition to being just plain cool). That was overkill, even with RFtools dimensions to power.