It also certainly doesn’t help me remembering which is which when in Outer WILDS you explore different worlds and in Outer WORLDS the tutorial area is kind of an overgrown wilds in which you explore very few worlds. When I have to talk about either one of them I just say “You know, the one with the crazy gravity physics and planets” or “You know, the one that’s basically just Firefly the video game.”
For me it’s definitely an RP choice. I don’t always choose one or the other, but in games that give character creation options I tend to go for a quick “non-canon” play test to get a feel for the game and setting and get an idea of how I want to play it. Then I start a new file and create a character to fit that. Sometimes I go for a lithe rogue or a buff fighter, and the gender usually depends on either how I’m feeling or possible story/world stuff that makes it fit better, or sometimes just something interesting. Like in early Cyberpunk there was a glitch where you could start with a male character, then switch some settings and you’d get the female options but it would keep the original genitalia, so I played through as a trans woman because it wasn’t something I’d done before and it was interesting and fit well into the setting. It didn’t change anything in the game and I kept my character clothed so you never saw her hanging dong. But then I hit the story with the trans woman NPC and my V found a friend who they could connect with a little better. It was a fun role-play opportunity and I felt like it helped my connect to the game and the world even better when my avatar wasn’t just a puppet I used to interact with the game. Even in games like the Witcher where you’re given a named character, my Geralt always developed his own personality. I once accidentally sold all my boots and didn’t realize for a few days that he was running around without shoes. When I noticed it immediately became part of his personality that he doesn’t wear shoes. He like feeling the grass when he fights and he’s more connected with nature. It kinda fit with the default personality but I leaned heavy into the more nature-focused choices where possible and it changed how I played.
Though I’m probably not an average case-study. I tend to eschew gender norms while identifying as a straight cis guy. I wear what I want, paint my nails or wear makeup if I’m feeling it. And I do lean heavy into the single player RPG games and avoid MOBAs or shooters. I think I’ve mostly just been playing DnD in all my video games, lol.
Speaking of DnD, my BG3 playthrough started with a female Drow monk because I haven’t played any of that in DnD before, but as I played I knew I wanted a rogue so I restarted and as I built it I started with a human male but ended up with a Gith male rogue because I liked the look a bit more for it and knowing what little I did about the Gith in the opening it would be fun RP. But in my head, he’s not from a creche but was lost as a small Gith and raised in some small village by human parents. So he doesn’t fit in with the Gith he meets but also faces the fear that most people in the world experience when they see him. It just adds so much more depth to the game when they have their own personality.
Because I don’t want to worry about finding a new backpack every time I just have everyone have 2 backpacks for selling items, then just before I sell I go to everyone’s backpacks and just mark everything as wares. Although, honestly I started doing it because I wasn’t positive that it was giving me the price for the items in the pack and not just the pack itself early on. It’s routine now.
I have a gilded chest in my camp supplies specifically for souvenirs. I also use chests for organization in the same camp chest. One for each weapon/armor type that I’m holding onto in case I decide to respec someone later and I need a different aspect on their armor.
I mean, I’m not arguing anything other than your false equivalent. I’m sure, at some point, we’ll be able to mimic how the human brain actually works, not just imitate the results. But we’re not even close right now. Not in the same ball park. Not in the same tri-state area. We still don’t really understand how it does what it does completely. We know some of the processes, and understand that’s it’s chemicals interacting with the meat in some way, but it’s still mostly kinda just weird stuff our body does. We’re mostly just pointing at areas that light up with activity when we do a thing and saying “yep, that’s the general area that’s doing stuff.”
And that’s just understanding it, let alone figuring out how to imitate it with technology. And none of those parts of the brain work independently. They’re spread out and they overlap and exchange and change information constantly, all with chemicals. Getting a computer to mimic the outcome is still something we’re far from, but without the same processes, its not really gonna come out the same. We’ve got just… so long to go before we actually get close to simulating a human brain.
And just for fun, I do think this line of yours is funny:
The idea that the human brain is special is ludicrous and completely without evidence
Again, I wasn’t saying anything of any sort, and I’m still not really taking any stance beyond “that shits complicated and we’re not there yet.” But you’re supposing that a “synthetic implementation can achieve the same thing.” … without supporting evidence. This argument was clearly meant for someone else, but it’s not really fair to demand evidence from someone for their claim when you don’t support your own. Jumping to the conclusion that something is impossible is the same as assuming it’s definitely possible. You don’t know that. I don’t know that. No one really knows that until it’s done.
You’re equating creativity to the soul. They’re not the same thing. But we can definitely look at the brain and see what parts light up when perform creative tasks.
While right now you need to put children and teenagers through years of rigorous training and expose them to immense stress and pressure so most of them break
Uh… I don’t think that’s a necessary part of the process to making k-pop, or any kind of music. Industry people may think it’s critical to making themselves shit-loads of money, but it’s not important for the creation music or even selling the music.
You’ve got some good points there, but it feels a little naive of nuance in parts.
Like, if these are natural rights, presumably this still counted before humans banded together to form the first societies. Before, even, we were small roving migratory groups that only just managed to climb out of the trees. humans, as they were, are basically animals at that point, right? I mean, we’re still animals, but you know what I mean. So we still have those rights? What makes us different than the other animals (or even other ape descendants) that we see as food? As a species, we were evolved to eat meat, which requires killing something else that presumably has these same rights that we have to violate to enforce our own right to life. Or did natural rights come later, when we were “better” and “more advanced” than the animals we hunted? Does that mean we get these rights when we reach a certain point in self-awareness?
It’s tough to argue with the base arguments you present, and I don’t disagree with them… but they can be argued against. Like your slavery argument. It goes against these natural rights that we have always had, yet we started taking our first steps toward stopping it, like, 600 years ago? Slavery predates writing. As far as we know, mankind was enslaving other people as far as we can track, and definitely hundreds, if not thousands of years before. So were they not aware of these natural rights or just didn’t care?
It sounds like you’re saying these are natural rights that everyone has because it feels right to you dues to the society you grew up in that appreciated these rights. They have to come from somewhere to be natural but only really count for some living things and not others.
Personally, I don’t believe in natural rights. We’re animals that grew opposable thumbs and learned to make tools. Human rights come about only because we live together in societies. In a way that sounds contradictory, we formed groups and gained rights among those other humans, and in the same instant traded some of those away for that group to function. Rights have to come from somewhere. Without groups agreeing on what those rights are, then the decider of rights is whoever is strongest. Might makes right started to decline only because we got into groups large enough to defend against outside forces, and even then it was only within the group in which those rights existed. Rights themselves are part of the social contract we all participate in when we exist in society and universal human rights is a relatively recent advancement, and we definitely haven’t come to a consensus as to what they all definitely are. But if society breaks down, those rights definitely disappear overnight. But I’ve always been the kind of person who needs reasons to believe a thing and have sound reasons to believe it.
I’m with you on right to life, and bodily autonomy are things that all humans should have. I think we just differ in their origin and universality.
So who decides what rights are natural ones and which ones need a government to enforce? And what are the natural rights? Not just that you believe it to be so, but why? And what you use to make that decision.
Forgive me, but I’ve been doing a lot of research lately on natural rights and their protections, limits, and origins. I’ve been reading a lot of philosophy on it and it’s extremely interesting. I’m genuinely curious how people come to these conclusions and I love hearing different viewpoints.
So where do these rights come from, if not the laws? I wonder if you may be taking free speech as a right as a given because of the time you grew up in. You speak of it as an absolute, but where does that belief come from? You say “rights” as if they’re something enshrined in our souls by a god, but like, how do you know that? Where does this information come from?
This is purely a philosophical question. I’m on the free speech wagon here. But realistically, Who gets to decide what’s actually an inalienable right that everyone has vs. rights that are encoded in laws?
One of those is there to sell more Playstation Plus Premium memberships. The other is there as a cheap way to try and convince a few people to buy a game no one wants.
I’ll let you decide which is which.
That might be due to our heavy government surveillance system. Remember, it wasn’t that long ago that a militia was arrested before they could carry out their plan to kidnap the governor of Michigan. The year before that a Coast Guard lieutenant was arrested before he could kill journalists and Democrat politicians. There was that nutjob who took a hammer to Pelosi’s husband’s head (Didn’t even catch that one in time!) There’s tons of attempts to assassinate presidents. Kinda feels pretty par for the course.
But the original point, I think, was that it’s kinda weird for someone to say it’s not surprising for it to happen in Mexico, as if it’s some third world country run like New York in Escape from New York while pretending it doesn’t happen in the US frequently. The US is just a bigger police state so they catch most of them before anyone dies. The FBI has plants in militias and groups like them all over the country specifically to catch this kind of thing. Most governments just can’t afford that kind of manpower. The US is not special or really that much safer, and comments normalizing this kind of thing for Mexico is why anyone even made that argument. It’s definitely shitty, and probably racist to think that it’s reasonable, when it’s in Mexico, people say "Eh it happens.”
There’s one other option:
They could make games outside newer versions of the same game. Game studios used to (and many still do) make a game, put it out, then get started making a whole different game. Even with the modern ability to update games,
Put game out
Update game to deal with unforeseen bugs found once the masses have access
Maybe put out 1 DLC if you want
Make a new game now. A different game.
What do you think the reasons are?
The stated purpose of the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 is to maintain sanctions on Cuba as long as the Cuban government refuses to move toward “democratization and greater respect for human rights.” cite
If that was actually true, half the countries the US trades with should be embargoed. Saudi Arabia, a monarchy?
U.S. goods and services trade with Saudi Arabia totaled an estimated $46.6 billion in 2022. Exports were $21.6 billion; imports were $24.9 billion. The U.S. goods and services trade deficit with Saudi Arabia was $3.3 billion in 2022. cite
Let’s not lie to ourselves, it’s always been about the Communism Boogie man. But if you want to cultivate capitalism in a country, cutting off the ability for free trade outside that country isn’t the way to do it. America’s influence stops other countries from trading there as well so they have no option but to rely on a government focused economic system as they’re the only ones with the ability to really participate in any market elsewhere. I agree that tankies can go fuck themselves, but you’re letting 60 year old propaganda get to you. The rest of the world has no problem with Cuba and it’s getting weirder and weirder that the US continues these unreasonable sanctions like a middle school bully holding a grudge well into middle-age. I can only assume you’re so sure because it’s just always been that way and you assume it’s for a good reason.
Why do people always do that? I agree it would be a good move, but because smoking is unhealthy and addictive and it’s existence in our society makes it collectively worse. But here I keep seeing people just say they’re glad because they think cigarettes are icky.
Hold up. I’m not super experienced in reading studies, but I can read.
At best this is correlation. HRV increasing for these men doesn’t mean a high HRV is required to be good at chess.
Sample size of 16… And only male.
HRV was reduced in participants who achieved worse results. This could indicate the possibility of HRV predicting cognitive performance
If reduced HRV means lower cognitive performance and women have, on average, lower HRV, you’re saying women are less smart. At least in chess. I think that’s bullshit and this study isn’t incorporating enough/the correct data to show anything you’re stating.
But here is one: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0149763411002077 that links HRV with stress response
And another: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0149763419310292 That shows women’s HRV responds less severely to stress.
Both meta-analysis, not a single data point.
So maybe men are just shit at dealing with stress and that’s why their brains go haywire during competition. But it’s so gracious of you being so kind to women and giving them a space where they can play among equals on a “MORE level playing field.”
By your logic, they should just be testing people’s HRV and ranking them that way so they all are on even ground. Give those dummy men a MORE level playing field.
I mean, the real answer is that chess is full of toxic people who’ve made it to the top to run the organization. The fact that this behavior wasn’t curtailed already shows that. Its just an accepted part of it. If the ones who would make the decision to ban those players don’t already see an issue they’re not going to start now to make the space better for women.
I mean, sure, you can blame this batch on the internet and necessary SEO, but good artists being skipped over is nothing new. There were days before the internet (and even after it’s implementation, but before the ecosystem you are talking about existed) where artists and band with immense talent were lost to time because things didn’t line up just right for them to be successful. Bands played gig after gig, sending their singles to record companies and nothing happened. Just being good at a thing has never been enough. That’s just step 1. Often, the right person has to see you, and that person has to be in the position to elevate you at the time. Maybe that industry guy was just in a bad mood that day and wasn’t enjoying any music and you just got a bad night.
And we have examples of visual artists dying in obscurity only for their art to hit it big after their death. It’s a whole trope in the art world. Van Gogh is probably the most famous. He died penniless having only sold a single painting while alive, and that was to his brother, a frickin art dealer! He even had a guy on the inside and couldn’t make it. Impressionism was a new school, but not exactly empty. As a genre it basically got it’s own museum in the Musée d’Orsay, and still, one of the greatest artists in the genre (and probably all art) couldn’t get a fucking break. Talent is often not enough. Luck and timing have always been more important.
My poor understanding of this situation is that, of the team working on it, one guy was like “We need to hold off on publishing until we’re 100% sure.” Then another guy was like “lol, gonna publish anyway and leave you off the paper.” The hesitant guy gets wind and rushes to publish (with everyone included) so as to at least be included in the process.
Also, there’s a thing about the first published one only had 3 people on it, making it eligible for a Nobel, but more than that does not qualify.
But overall, I agree! It’s not like it being publicized stops them from working on it. They will still be working on it, and it’s definitely a step towards progress. Technological process tends to be lots of small improvements to the same system over time until someone comes up with a huge leap. Then the process begins again by constantly improving on that new technology. Hopefully, this is that next huge leap in energy.
Plus, with their process so far published, more people are able to work on it without starting from scratch. It would suck for the original scientists, but be a net good overall if the early publication led to someone else being able to move farther then them because they now have access to it.
If they make a bad product do you want more of it, even for free?
Like, reviewers get to the point where companies send them free product for review from a long period of legitimate reviews that get them a large enough audience. It’s unlikely they’re getting their main profits from free products sent.
Obviously you shouldn’t take a single person’s review as gospel anyway, but just them getting a review copy of a thing isn’t a sole reason to discredit their opinion.