Honestly, I agree, putting a gender slant on it, unless completely necessary, can easily arecomplicate the situation, as its putting these expectations at the front of mind. I often see this leading either into resentful sexism, or original sin type self-loathing for being a man.
I honesty just think tbe topic of gender online is so toxic, that mixing it in with mental health can cause lots of unnecessarily complications, and makes it easy for third parties to take advantage for their own ends.
Weirdly it’s the other way for me. I love Cyberpunk and am trying to replay it, and my favourite games have always been long and story driven, I love turning over the rocks and seeing how deep it all goes, playing KOTOR as a kid was just fascinating.
But, they’re a slow burn that take some engagement to really enjoy. When I’m tired I miss all the details and nuance, find I’ve not been listening to dialogue and stuff.
But I can fire up something like Overwatch and can play well effortlessly almost instinctually. I often don’t get much time to game, so the fact its full-on actually helps, whereas in an RPG, you can easily burn half an hour on what’s basically just dialogue and travel. It’s hard to take your time to enjoy it when you don’t have time.
But it’s fine, it’s something to look forward to occasionally. You don’t watch a movie every night, and ultimately I could find time, but I feel better spending that time on other things usually, or just letting off steam on a less thinky game.
It’s the kind of meaningless vague posting that rightoids are rightly criticised for when they post shit about the people they consider to be the ‘problem’. It’s vaguely shaped like the way they see the world, but really this is about as substantial as the ‘immigrant benefit fraud’ posts your shitty uncle posts.
I don’t even know what this is referencing, or how this would work, but everyone is in here saying ‘Omg so true’ and believing that this is the reason that things are shitty.
Like, everyone’s quick to jump on bollocks conspiracy theories, and consider such things as flat-earthers to be significant in any way, but you’ll constantly see vague shit implying these enormous, unlikely conspiracies between multiple competing companies, the government, involving the collusion and silence of thousands of people, and they get up voted because people believe it’s the sort of thing that could happen.
What bothers me is that it ends up coming to ‘someone should do something about this!’, but exaggerating constantly makes extreme options look reasonable or even necessary.
Very few people can actually say what they’d want the new status-quo to look like though, outside of vague slogans or utopian ideas that those in power will somehow do things wisely, justly and selflessly, like they never have before. We can’t compare to any other attempt at communism, and even the most prosperous socialist state would be considered ‘neolib’. Because the thing is, it’s really not clear how communism is the silver bullet many think it is, but also, the vagueness and disparity about the end goal means that we can’t really look at our current situation, look at the proposed one, look at what it will take to get there, and make an informed decision on which is likely to actually make things better.
Examples? I would love some free billions!
*exist for the good of those in power. I really don’t see the value of concentrating power into a single point of failure.
German government procurement is horrendously inefficient, but it’s because of incredible levels of transparency to try to prevent corruption.
It means that even the most minute purchases come with lots of beurocracy attached.
You can look at it almost as its own kind of corruption, that syphons money into the beurocracy, but it does mean that things aren’t happing without people knowing, and that, for an extreme example, when you decide to invade another country isn’t the moment when you discover that you discover that most of your equipment had been sold for vodka money a decade ago!
A company is much easier to crash than a monarch or government. A government will lock you up or kill you for planning to overthrow them.
Efficient and not necessarily too neutral, classy. But coiling that condenser/feed through every single plate must have been a real fucker!
Can someone fill me in on wtf is going on with drag in the US?
I’m from the UK, drag is like our longest running joke, and families go to pantomimes all the time. Recently theres been a more direct association with the LGBT community in the popular understanding of it. I’d say that most people’s view on drag here is:
Some of the stuff I see out of the US is bizzare. I realise that the weirder stuff is always going to be amplified in the news, and people are not necessarily trying to show the full context in photos. But I’ve seen shit like
Like, wtf? Drag isn’t the problem, it’s the weird-ass way that people seem to be responding to it. Go to a show if you think you might enjoy it, read up on the performance or use context ques to understand what kind of drag performance it’s going to be. Certainly don’t go for political reasons and ruin the fun for performers who are just trying to have a good time. But equally, don’t plan shows that are meant to provoke a reaction for political reasons, for the same reason.
And why the right wingers care so much if fucking beyond me. Imagine having enough free time to consider that important enough to spend your precious free time protesting it rather than doing literally anything else.
Just chill, it’s a fucking stage show. It’s like the whole toilet thing again, just hysterics over something inconcequential. I’m trans and fabulous as fuck and don’t seem to consider these issues nearly as important than a middle-aged cishet blue collar dude from Texas who may never have met a single trans person or encountered anything like this outside of the Internet.
Is only fun show, why you heff to be mad?
There’s a really nice nozzle cam available for Voron now. You have to print the front cover part again, but it has a housing for a 4K nozzle cam. Much more pricy, but incredible quality, invisible and a bit easier to connect.
Yeah, it runs Klipper so the Pi is doing most of the crunching and also acts as a webserver. A long USB cable to your computer or phone also gets the job done. It’s mostly to help with tuning and diagnosis, because you can actually see what’s happening rather than just seeing the effects of what happened, and is meant to be removed after use, but I’ve still been daily driving it!
Public transport is great in cities, but as soon as things get more sparsely populated, you get diminishing returns. Everything takes longer, runs infrequently, and still barely gets you close.
But then if they run more frequently, they’d be empty.
Yet, where I live, they keep introducing hostile rules, new houses can only have one parking space, at a time where kids are having to live with their parents for longer, so their mobility, job opportunities, etc are really hampered. It would be one thing if there was decent public transport infrastructure, but there’s literally nothing, just people becoming ‘stuck’ because those who make the rules often don’t think about areas as a whole.
Mines a Formbot and I was very impressed with everything! I don’t really like Discord as an information source, but the Voron Discord is full of very smart folks with lots of experience if you wasn’t aware!
They say Moscow is the Third Rome, and what’s more Roman than declaring victory and going home?
I guess a lot of it must be the belief that things could be better, that a country, organisation, etc is actually capable of so much more, but is holding back, and it just needs someone with the will to actually use it.
It reminds me a bit of Fargo, season 3 I think? Two of the main characters are getting constantly outplayed, but are still generally keeping to the confines, rules and routines of their regular lives. One of them, who is trying to deal with it, asks to be ‘unleashed’, to try and deal with the problem directly, no restrictions, the other eventually gives him permission. The guy sets out full of resolve and confidence, but ultimately falls completely flat, because really, pretty much nothing was being ‘held back’, and this direct approach also cost them their status. I think of it a lot looking at Russia at the moment, they could always do X if they really wanted to, but they don’t, but they could. Now they’ve crossed that line, and it has cost them dearly, but they had less in reserve than they seemed to think, now they will hint at more mobilisation, industrial capacity, etc to seem like they’re holding back.
When things are bad in some way, very few people are willing to accept that this is likely the best they can expect. The belief that they could do something if they wanted, is quite the cope, and if they actually do want to do the thing, then they will look to ‘strong’ leaders who claim to have the will to do just that. Then they usually flop.
Sometimes, though, this is completely true, as with your example, Napoleon was someone capable of unlocking the potential of France that had been held back initially by conservative ideas, then by factionalism and instability. But that was an example of extreme internal turmoil, that he was able to fix, while also being a legitimate genius, able to implement ideas decades ahead of his time, with an almost singular focus and determination. I don’t like Napoleon, but I have a great deal of respect for him, especially the earlier part of his career.
People always look for simple answers. Simple things that ‘need to be done’ to get the right outcome. It may be nationalising companies, eating the rich, building the wall, destroying Carthage or taking the Sudetenland. The question is; 1. will these actions achieve the outcomes they seek, and b) what will it cost? Because it’s easy to look at politicians as being malicious, scheming and evil, but really, if there’s such an easy fix to massively improve everyones’ lives, even if they don’t entirely agree on an ideological level, it will secure votes for them for decades, so it will usually be done regardless. The only reason it wouldn’t is when they are worried that the cost will outweigh the benefit.
I guess a lot of it must be the belief that things could be better, that a country, organisation, etc is actually capable of so much more, but is holding back, and it just needs someone with the will to actually use it.
It reminds me a bit of Fargo, season 3 I think? Two of the main characters are getting constantly outplayed, but are still generally keeping to the confines, rules and routines of their regular lives. One of them, who is trying to deal with it, asks to be ‘unleashed’, to try and deal with the problem directly, no restrictions, the other eventually gives him permission. The guy sets out full of resolve and confidence, but ultimately falls completely flat, because really, pretty much nothing was being ‘held back’, and this direct approach also cost them their status. I think of it a lot looking at Russia at the moment, they could always do X if they really wanted to, but they don’t, but they could. Now they’ve crossed that line, and it has cost them dearly, but they had less in reserve than they seemed to think, now they will hint at more mobilisation, industrial capacity, etc to seem like they’re holding back.
When things are bad in some way, very few people are willing to accept that this is likely the best they can expect. The belief that they could do something if they wanted, is quite the cope, and if they actually do want to do the thing, then they will look to ‘strong’ leaders who claim to have the will to do just that. Then they usually flop.
Sometimes, though, this is completely true, as with your example, Napoleon was someone capable of unlocking the potential of France that had been held back initially by conservative ideas, then by factionalism and instability. But that was an example of extreme internal turmoil, that he was able to fix, while also being a legitimate genius, able to implement ideas decades ahead of his time, with an almost singular focus and determination. I don’t like Napoleon, but I have a great deal of respect for him, especially the earlier part of his career.
People always look for simple answers. Simple things that ‘need to be done’ to get the right outcome. It may be nationalising companies, eating the rich, building the wall, destroying Carthage or taking the Sudetenland. The question is; 1. will these actions achieve the outcomes they seek, and b) what will it cost? Because it’s easy to look at politicians as being malicious, scheming and evil, but really, if there’s such an easy fix to massively improve everyones’ lives, even if they don’t entirely agree on an ideological level, it will secure votes for them for decades, so it will usually be done regardless. The only reason it wouldn’t is when they are worried that the cost will outweigh the benefit.
Oi, I’m moderate af and am only techy to people who don’t know the difference between a laptop and… the larger one!
I do like a community that values a free, open and decentralised Internet, Reddit used to, but seems to have lost that.
Not always, but it is when you go public. I work a lot at small businesses, lots of them have shareholders who are mostly hands-off, or would prefer a more conservative approach to protect their investment.
People who invest in non-public businesses are usually in for the long haul, and come with much greater risk.
But when you go public, your business just comes a commodity, nothing but a vehicle for a fund manager to use to try and get a higher return for their clients so they get more business and commission.
In theory, it’s a really democratic system, but the reality is that we’ve lost track of what an investment is meant to be, and the number of private individuals actually holding shares in a company directly is very low, it’s mostly fund managers who literally just want to pump their numbers for a few years, because long term, they never really beat the market.
I didn’t think for even a moment that it would be that simple, thank you so much!