MolochAlter

Kind of a stupid decision to call something pre-currency and pre-codified laws “anarcho communist”.

It’d be like calling something born before animal life “vegan” because it doesn’t eat animals.

Technically correct, maybe, but very much missing the point of the label.

Dictation software has come a long way huh

games that I really do care about and want to be able to experience on authentic hardware.

Crack the console then, ps2s have software cracks by now, and sideloading cartridges exist for a fair few portable consoles.

Basically the only one where you can’t really do it is the cartridge era stuff but those can be approximated with a decent emulator, a controller adapter and a CRT screen, if you’re willing to tolerate a bit of latency with output converters.

Games are fundamentally software, the hardware gives the experience but the cartridges/disks, with some exceptional cases aside, are literally just a delivery system and a means to maintain ownership.

It’s nice to have them for that feeling of tangible presence but realistically that’s never going to be more affordable the further we move from when they were made, but that doesn’t mean you can’t at least approximate playing on the hardware or straight up just do it.

they’re just screwing us out of possible remakes

Bro don’t make me like them T~T

Ayyy I know that reference. Good story that one.

Neither of those people were ordinary in any way tho.

Very small font on very thin paper.

Everyone’s dying so let’s post inane comments online.

Shut the fuck up, you’re even less useful than the behaviour you complain about.

They did not say “do I enjoy it?” they said “Is it worth the effort?” and if having food made exactly to your taste is not worth the effort you either have no standards and would be fine with microwave slop and fast food, or you lack the skill to make something that satisfies you.

Either way, skill issue.

The one exception would be if you’re disabled or something, and I don’t mean “I have adhd” disabled, I mean “I physically can’t stand at the stove for 20-30 minites” disabled.

Is it worth the effort?

No.

Sounds like you suck at cooking, my guy.

Because it’s pressvertising.

Veilguard has had a year (at least) of relentless, shameless astroturfing, ever since BG3 got GOTY, because EA knows it’s not gonna be even close to competing with it and they (rightly) fear Veilguard will get shat on, especially since Bioware is on a 2 games abject failure streak with Andromeda and Anthem both failing horribly and Inquisition having at best a mixed reception with how buggy and repetitive it was at launch.

As a rule of thumb: if an article comes out before a game’s actual release, it’s positive about an aspect the game or franchise is known to be lacking in, and it sounds like John Oliver’s parody of a corporate shill? It’s pressvertising.

It’s access-for-coverage, a trading of favours that stays undisclosed because technically no money changed hands; however, in the past we’ve seen what happens to outlets that don’t kiss the ring and use the access to actually speak negatively of the product, or even neutrally, so we know there is an implicit (and explicit if you know the history of these dealings) pressure to be positive at any cost.

So in short: it’s a bad article pretending to analyse the content they have early access to when really they’re just advertising the game uncritically. It’s literally just source-washed marketing material.

Here’s to a multi-year long process to port the campaigns from BG1 and 2 into 3.

Disco Elysium, which plays really well on deck even with very low TDP, great for long lazy days.

I mean, would you? It looks like the most generic checklist driven product I’ve seen yet.

It’s so spineless it may be more lobster than game.

Holding morals and preaching them are different things.

I fundamentally disagree that this distinction exists, and even if it did this is not a situation where it would apply.

Morals regulate your own actions, there is no point in holding a moral value that you don’t abide by. That makes you a hypocrite whether you preach that value or not.

Preaching it also makes you a public hypocrite if you get caught, but you’re still hypocritical even if you are only betraying a private value, you’re just not accountable to others.

And if that’s all that matters to you then you don’t actually hold that value.

I think there’s got to be room for some grey areas in morality.

There is room when you can draw a clear line as to why a principle ought to apply in one situation but not in another, an argument that “it feels different when I do it” is no such standard.

For instance, killing is permissible in self defense, but murder is not acceptable. Easy line to draw that makes the same practical action morally distinct depending on context (aggressor/victim).

I abhor late-stage capitalism, but I would not rather die than shop at a chain supermarket.

And if that’s your only option that is a pretty straightforward line you can draw that has nothing to do with your personal gain by ignoring an otherwise inconvenient principle.

“I won’t patronise large corporations whenever I have an alternative” is a fair line to draw, as long as you don’t immediately walk back on it as soon as it becomes inconvenient by being slightly out of your way or a bit more expensive.

OP said no such thing, however. They straight up went “when I break my own moral principles it doesn’t feel as bad as when others break them against me” which is utter horseshit.

You mean to tell me that when you try to kill someone it somehow feels less bad than when someone else tries to kill you? No fucking way, what a discovery!

So yeah, unless OP can actually provide a generalized standard by which anyone can do what they’re doing and still maintain an ethical position, they’re just finding excuses to placate their own conscience, while pretending to maintain a coherent moral standard, when really they never held anything of the sort, they just don’t like to be on the receiving end of the stick.

If you truly believe investing, and especially investing in real estate, is immoral, then you shouldn’t do it, the same way you shouldn’t eat pork if you keep kosher or halal.

Anything else, especially “it feels more like buying back my own lost value” is such a gigantic cope that I’ve seen pictures of it taken from the ISS.

Either accept that your beliefs are incorrect, and participate in the market like a normal person, or stick to your beliefs when it’s inconvenient too.

This behaviour is morally no better than that of megachurch pastors who preach the immorality of gay sex and get caught paying men to fuck them in the ass.

LMAO how exactly?

Brush up on your theory, then.

Bourgeois doesn’t mean billionaire, it means capital owner.

I have owned my own business in the past and I am on track to be a partner in my current one, not to mention multiple properties.

So yeah, definitely at least petit bourgeois.

LMAO bold of you to assume I’m not bourgeois myself, but go off, king.

I’m not saying everyone should stop working! I’ve said that a dozen times now.

It’s not a matter of what you say, it’s a matter of the inevitable consequences of the arrangement you propose.

People should not need to find employment to be deemed deserving of basic necessities.

In most western countries, the ones wealthy and well run enough to have such a system, that’s already the case. You need to look for employment, strive to be useful to society, not actually succeed.

They should not be allowed to starve simply because they can’t stack shelves or flip burgers.

can’t

Yeah, that’s not what you’ve been arguing for, and you know it. Nowhere in your prior post does it mention being unable to work.

You’ve done nothing but arguing that people should not need to work to live regardless of ability.

They should be offered basic necessities regardless of their employment.

But not regardless of their willingness to be employed.

You can’t find a job? Cool. If the state comes around and tells you there’s roads to tar, you’ll tar roads. That would be a fair arrangement.

If there’s literally no work left to do for you there shouldn’t be a gun to your head, I agree.

However that isn’t, wasn’t, and likely will never be the case.

But I’m not entertaining your delusions that I’m saying everuone should stop working.

No, what you’re saying is everyone should have the option not to work (which they already do, if they can afford it) with no drawbacks whatsoever, making work completely optional for the individual, which it de facto isn’t for the collective as a whole.

Since, as you already conceded, food does not manifest out of thin air decoupling individual survival from labour, when collective survival is very much not decoupled from labour, creates a tragedy of the commons of catastrophic proporions.

Which means that unless some people decide to work for no reason other than funzies, or worse an understanding that they must take responsibility for no reason other than altruism, a lot of essential work just won’t get done.

I know for a fact i’m not getting up at 4-5 AM to tend to a farm and, for that matter, neither will you, mr “think about whatever it was”, but if society is not to collapse after this systemic change, someone will, and you are not entitled to their labour any more than your boss in real life is entitled to yours.

Salaries and tying able-bodied people’s quality of life to labour are ways to ensure not only that the work that needs doing gets done, they’re there to ensure it gets done consistently and to the required scale.

What the baseline quality of life should be is a matter of debate but if live in the west with the possible exceptions of US and maybe the UK, you’re absolutely fucking fine at the baseline. I should fucking know, I was there for years.

Work must happen so someone must do the work. Saying no individual person must, doesn’t mean someone won’t have to at some point, and the reality is that this work needs to be consistent and reliable enough to be essentially taken for granted for society to function (something we’ve clearly achieved given your worldview), which means it fundamentally can’t be done on a volunteer basis.

It’s a responsibility that must be dealt with at all times.

So if some people must work, who gets not to, in your world? Who gets to opt out of the must clause?

How do you divide those who must work and those who can just exist?

We used to have that distinction once upon a time, it was called slavery, or indenture, or serfdom.

If you are to be delivered your beets and vodka ration every month, someone has to make them.

If someone makes them they are expending their labour, paying for at least part of your existence.

And you know what?

Not only would it not work.

Not only is that fundamentally parasitic (which makes me realise you’re probably not a communist, as those guys are very not in favour of leeches usually).

But, frankly? You don’t deserve that.

I’d rather the person making your food get to take an extra day off than you living for free for no reason other than leaving your mother’s cunt because, ultimately, it doesn’t take all that much not to be a useless sack of shit, and you’re not even doing that, in this scenario.

Studied have already been done in this area proving it is entirely feasible.

UBI pilot studies are fundamentally flawed because they inject wealth into a specific subset of the population (the people in the test group) instead of absolutely everyone up to and including the primary and secondary sector.

If a handful of farmers happens to slow production down because they are in that one pilot progam, that won’t impact worldwide or even nation-wide production, if every farmer, trucker, etc. in the world were to do that at the same time without improving per-hour productivity, there’s absolutely no guarantee you wouldn’t see food scarcity rise.

As it is now, testing UBI is the same as a few people winning the lottery. Not a valuable test of a systemic change.

Meanwhile every country that has tried giving universal basic necessities without means testing or other counterbalances has failed horrendously unless they were autocracies with command economies, in which cases they were just dystopic hellholes, instead of starving dystopic hellholes.

Stop fighting your own liberation.

It’s my turn to post a quote this time:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.

~C. S. Lewis.