Spzi

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Is that the statue of Liberty in a toilet, or what is this supposed to be?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

As a german, I feel the right side is much more alien to me than the left side (split at "Start here").

Is that circumstancial, or does it reflect some linguistic truth? Like, are the languages on the left one family, and the ones on the right another family, or however linguistic taxonomy would call that?

Maybe it's just that the left side includes all the germanic languages, so that feels more familiar. There are also languages on the left side where I have no clue what or where that might be. But much more so on the right side.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago

Right, that was the spirit. Though to be honest, it can harm. Some people are shy. Or strongly shy away from awkward situations caused by not-yet-close-friends. They can still be great friends, but unlucky situations during the getting-to-know each other phase can prevent that. We judge people with different standards, depending on how close they are. So when you interpolate distant-behavior to predict close-behavior, there is probably some error margin.

So there is some risk involved in asking, but likewise for not asking. I guess just be you and see where it goes.

One final thought: I think it's important to take care that the question is not perceived as an accusation.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Usually I stop after 2 or 3 attempts.

You could also ask him directly. Maybe he's generally not interested in lunching together, or he was just too busy to respond, or whatever. These questions can be awkward, but also deepen a friendship. A risk-reward mechanic in the game of life.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks ago

My first two matches (historic ranked bo1) after the update resulted in a crash, before the match started. Later everything was fine.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

While possible, it goes against the Mediocrity principle:

The idea is to assume mediocrity, rather than starting with the assumption that a phenomenon is special, privileged, exceptional, or even superior.[2][3]

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks ago

Right. Also the speed of transition matters a lot.

Take any devastating effect that climate change might bring. Regions becoming uninhabitable, millions migrating, thousands of houses destroyed, crops failing, species going extinct.

For any of these effects, it helps a great deal if they can be delayed by years or hopefully decades. It gives everything more time to adapt. Like 10 million people migrating in 1 year puts a hell lot more stress on everybody involved (including the receiving countries) compared to 10 million migrating in 10 years.

Or your country might be blessed to deal with wildfires and floods one after the other, instead of both occuring simultaneously.

More time is worth more effort.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 3 weeks ago (7 children)

Much like that comment. Can you give a better example, or express why it's a bad example? That would bring some quality in.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 3 weeks ago (13 children)

FYI you can self-host GitLab, for example in a Docker container.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

You can find "piggy power" at the bottom of the article, headlined "How to describe your game instead".

Pixel Washer is a cozy, zen-like game where you play as a cute *piggy power washing* beautiful pixelated worlds.

I can read it in two ways: Either you're a ghostly piggy power, who is washing. Or you're a "piggy", who is "power washing". The grammar is ambiguous.

Maybe you meant to take side for the interpretation as a "cute piggy". I agree that's the most likely interpretation.

Still, this might confuse or downright misinform some readers. The main point of the article was to communicate what the game is in a clearer, more accessible way. So I found it worthwhile pointing out how it kind of fails there.

The author was concerned somebody might read a description like "Pixel Washer is like PowerWash Simulator meets Stardew Valley", and partially fail to understand it, because they don't really know what "PowerWash Simulator" or "Stardew Valley" are. Because they aren't literate enough in game titles.

But similarly, one can worry readers might not know certain words or grammatical constructions (maybe because they are no native speakers, or for other reasons), to decide wether it's a washing power or a piggy washing; because they aren't literate enough in English.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Describing your game by listing other games is tempting, but not a good idea, and I'm about to convince you why.

That did not age so well. I found most arguments rather weak. Here's an overview of all the three arguments, copied from the article:

  1. It requires your audience to be familiar with those games
  2. It creates pre-conceived notions, setting high expectations
  3. Players prefer to discover the similarities on their own

Generally, we have at least two options for describing thing A: We can relate it to another thing B ("Pixel washer is like Stardew Valley"), or we can relate it to some abstract attribute ("Pixel washer is uplifting"). Either way, we use language shorthands to describe similarities with other known entities.

About 1: Yes, that is obviously true. And it's also true for the opposite, when you don't relate your game to other games. Granted, your description becomes more accessible to a broader audience since it does not require them to know the other games. But instead, the reader now has to be able to understand and visualize what your description might look and feel like as a game (and thus becomes less accessible again). Take for example the first sentence of the proposed better description:

"Pixel Washer is a cozy, zen-like game where you play as a cute piggy power washing beautiful pixelated worlds."

I'd flag 'cozy' and 'zen-like' as probably rather less known and/or well-understood terms. I'm also not sure what 'piggy power' means. Is it even meant as one thing or is english grammar misleading as so often? Does it involve actual pigs or only their powers, whatever that might mean? But fair enough, even if all that remains not understood, the minimal takeaway is probably that it's a game with pixels and pigs and washing. So yeah, the alternate description probably works for most people.

But in the same way, a description referring to other games also works for most people.

In case of unclear references, a game-reference wins over a word-description. Like when I look up 'cozy' and 'zen-like', I may or may not come across definitions and pictures which convey the same idea as the author intended. For example, I might find results about baking cookies or shooting arrows, which have nothing to do with washing pigs. Whereas, when I look up "PowerWash Simulator" and "Stardew Valley", the results are far less ambiguous.

Argument 2 is the strongest from my point of view. But again, it's pretty similar for both ways. It should be kept in mind. Maybe it's best to ask your game testers how they would describe the game, including those who don't like it, to avoid setting too high expectations because you fell in love with your game while making it.

Argument 3 was entirely new to me. It never crossed my mind, nor did I hear anyone complain about it. I think people very much appreciate language shorthands, if they are used well and are not misleading. If so, they can save time and give a crisp description. And let's not forget that we are talking about advertisement. We know we are being lied to, that a 'fast-paced action shooter' can feel dull and boring quickly. As the author points out, these descriptions serve one purpose only; to generate more sales.

I also wanted to include a reference to Roguelikes or Roguelites. Apparently there once was a game named 'Rogue', which no one knows. But it spurred other creators to make something similar, and now we have genres called Roguelike and Roguelite. I think that's kind of funny in this context, since in this case you somewhat cannot describe the genre without comparing it to another, specific game.

Last but not least, the whole argument is probably less relevant in mainstream games, but more so in indie, or niche, new games in a creative way. When there is almost nothing which is very similar, comparisons to other games might work less well than if you're just releasing another RTS or FPS.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

Yes, the R/W cats are overpowered. They even outclass RedDeckWins in their aggressiveness.

And single cards of the overpowered combo can be found in other decks, too. They just introduced a few too strong pieces with [[Ocelot Pride]], [[Guide of Souls]] and [[Ajani, Nacatl Pariah]]. Though [[Unstable Amulet]] and [[Amped Raptor]] are very often part of these decks, or played in other types, as they are also strong by themselves.

It's really frustrating to play against these. For me, the biggest part of the frustration is the frequency at which these cards are encountered. It feels like 2 in 3 BO1 matches are one of those. Like everybody wants to play with the new big toys. Which is understandable, but the lack of diversity makes the game rather dull at the moment.

Recently, I watched a video about card balancing in trading card games (short version: It's impossible). Guy talked about engines; multiple cards working together, and how to balance with those in mind. Conclusion was, it is okay to introduce those. Just make sure to make the individual cards slightly less efficient.

I think this is where WotC failed. They introduced a new engine (Ocelot generating tokens, Guide gaining energy from it, Amulet drawing cards with it, all without requiring mana apart from the initial, very low cost), which can easily kill an opponent in 3 or 4 turns. And the single cards by themselves are also so good that they are being included in many other decks.

Strong, versatile, very efficient. It surely is fun to play, even against once in a while, but they went over the top once again, which makes diversity suffer.

 

What they actually mean is rather "these two things are very dissimilar", or "these two things are unequal".

I guess in most situations "cannot be compared" could be replaced by "cannot be equated", with less lingual inaccuracy and still the same message conveyed.

To come to the conclusion that two things are very dissimilar, very unequal, one necessarily has to compare them. So it's rather odd to come up with "cannot be compared" after just literally comparing them.

For example, bikes and cars. We compare them by looking at each's details, and finding any dissimilarities. They have a different amount of wheels. Different propulsion methods. Different price, and so on.

When this list becomes very long, or some details have a major meaning which should not be equated, people say they cannot be compared.

An example with a major meaning difference: Some people say factory farming of animals and the Holocaust are very similar, or something alike. Others disagree, presumably because they feel wether it's humans or animals being treated, the motives or whatnot make a difference big enough that the two should not be ~~compared~~ equated.

Can you follow my thoughts? Are 'dissimilar' or 'unequal' better terms? I'd be especially interested in arguments in favor of 'compared'.

 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/15519217

Mit der Petition wird keine Kürzung von Finanzmitteln für den Nahverkehr gefordert. Im Zuge der Haushaltskrise nach dem Urteil des Bundesverfassungsgerichts vom November 2023 wird nach schnellen Wegen gesucht, die Haushaltslücke zu stopfen. Es soll gespart werden. Dabei steht auch im Raum, die Mittel, die der Bund den Ländern jedes Jahr zur Verfügung stellt - die sogenannten Regionalisierungsmittel - zu kürzen.

Begründung

Die Bundesregierung hat sich zum Ziel gesetzt, aus Klimaschutzgründen die Fahrgastzahlen im öffentlichen Nahverkehr bis 2030 zu verdoppeln. Die drohenden Kürzungen der Regionalisierungsmittel würden jedoch bedeuten, dass Züge gestrichen werden oder gar Strecken stillgelegt werden müssten. Fahrgäste würden von der Schiene aufs Auto umsteigen, was höheren CO2-Ausstoß bedeutet und das Klima geschädigt würde. Gerade im Verkehrsbereich droht eine Verfehlung der Klimaziele. Wir brauchen aber mehr statt weniger Klimaschutz und haben nur den einen Planeten zum bewohnen.

Sinnvoller wäre es doch, klimafeindliche Subventionen wie das Dienstwagenprivileg zu kürzen, das den Staat 3,5-5.5, Mrd. Euro pro Jahr kostet. Hier ist ein viel größeres Sparpotential vorhanden - und das Klima könnte geschützt werden.

 

Piped: https://piped.video/watch?v=zMxHU34IgyY

On October 7, 2023, Hamas initiated an offensive against Israel in a manner unseen for a half century. This video goes deep into the broader source of the conflict. Unlike traditional explanations, it highlights bargaining frictions as a key cause. It is not sufficient to simply point to the substantive issues in dispute between Hamas and Israel. As long as war is costly, both sides should prefer avoiding a war in principle. Thus, we must explain the conflict using bargaining frictions: first strike advantages, long-term shifts in the balance of power, uncertainty over the outcome of war, or leader biases.

Hope you like some lines on maps, because there is going to be a heavy dose of them today!

  • 0:00 Hamas and Israel at War
  • 2:25 The Substantive Conflict
  • 5:53 War's Inefficiency Puzzle
  • 10:37 First Strike Advantages and Preemptive War
  • 13:04 Power Shifts, Preventive War, and Saudi Arabia
  • 16:13 Information Problems and Turbulent Israeli Politics
  • 17:36 Leader Benefits and Violence as Advertisement
  • 19:02 Which One Caused the War?
  • 20:40 Can You Get KFC in Gaza?
 

Alternativ: https://piped.video/watch?v=KZNvClrM6Rw

Ich gehe hier aus verschiedenen Perspektiven durch, was zu berücksichtigen ist, wenn man die Auswirkung von Heizen mit Holz bzw. Holz als Brennstoff aufs Klima bewerten will.

Das Video packt in die knapp 10 Minuten vier Detailstufen, bei denen die Schlussfolgerung mal "klimaneutral" lautet, mal "nicht":

  • Stufe 1: Klimaneutral, weil nur CO~2~ freigesetzt wird, was vorher aufgenommen wurde.
  • Stufe 2: Klimaschädlich, weil wachsen viel länger dauert als verbrennen
  • Stufe 3: Kann klimaneutral sein, wenn viele Bedingungen beachtet werden
  • Stufe 4: Klimaschädlich, weil Wald statt nur neutral eigentlich eine Senke sein könnte
 

YouTube Cut:

Based on documents and "pocket litter" recovered from HAMAS casualties, it appears that Operation Al-Aqsa Flood was well in planning for over a year and had the assistance of Iran.

 

https://piped.video/watch?v=hvk_XylEmLo

Sources: Juliet B. Schor, "The Overworked American: The Unexpected Decline of Leisure"


David Rooney, "About Time: A History of Civilization in Twelve Clocks" E. P. Thompson, "Time, Work-Discipline, and Industrial Capitalism" | https://www.jstor.org/stable/649749 James E. Thorold Rogers, "Six Centuries of Work and Wages: The History of English Labour" | https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/rogers/sixcenturies.pdf George Woodcock, "The Tyranny of the Clock," Published in "War Commentary - For Anarchism" in March, 1944


GDP per capita in England, 1740 to 1840, via Our World in Data | https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-in-the-uk-since-1270 Nominal wages, consumer prices, and real wages in the UK, United Kingdom, 1750 to 1840, via Our World in Data | https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/nominal-wages-consumer-prices-and-real-wages-in-the-uk-since-1750

 

Running around with StreetComplete, the app sometimes tells me to leave a note instead, which I do. Short time later, I receive an email that another person has resolved my note. That's nice, but wouldn't it be better to do it all on my own?

I think I need a more powerful Editor for that, and installed Vespucci. Now I'm scared to break things. What are the next steps, how to proceed?

173
PI is what (i.imgur.com)
 

The volume of a cylinder is found using the formula V = πr^2^h. Using π = 5, r = 10 and h = 10. Find the volume V.

 

Before, completing the last lesson of a group (e.g. completing 5 of 5) activated a 15 minute boost. Which allowed me stop doing lessons at 4/5 and do practice instead. Later that day, I could complete lesson 5 to get a boost for a new session.

Now, these activation steps seem to be randomly scattered across lessons. Sometimes it's lesson 2, sometimes 5. Never the last one.

Did anyone else notice this? Any idea why? How do you deal with it?

It leads me to learn longer than I actually wanted (because I accidentally trigger boosts), or leads to me 'wasting' boosts, both of which feels bad.

 

https://www.youtube.com/@Brackeys/about


Text version, thanks to @[email protected]:

Image Text

BRACKEYS

Hello everyone!

It’s been a while. I hope you are all well.

Unity has recently taken some actions to change their pricing policy that I - like most of the community - do not condone in any way.

I have been using Unity for more than 10 years and the product has been very important to me. However, Unity is a public company. Unfortunately that means that it has to serve shareholder interests. Sometimes those interests align with what is best for the developers and sometimes they do not. While this has been the case for a while, these recent developments have made it increasingly clear.

Unity has pulled back on the first version of their new pricing policy and made some changes to make it less harmful to small studios, but it is important to remember that the realities of a public company are not going to change.

Luckily, there are other ways of structuring the development of software. Instead of a company owning and controlling software with a private code base, software can be open source (with a public code base that anyone can contribute to) and publicly owned. Blender - a stable 3D modelling software in the game dev community - is free and open source. In fact some of the largest and most advanced software in the world is built on top of open source technology like Linux.

The purpose of this post is not to denounce Unity because of a misstep, to criticise any of its employees or to tell anyone to “jump ship”. Instead I want to highlight the systematic issue of organizing large software projects under a public company and to let you know that there are alternatives.

I believe that the way to a stronger and more healthy game dev community is through software created by the community for the community. Software that is open source, democratically owned and community funded.

Many of you have been asking for us to produce new tutorial series on alternative engines such as Godot, which is currently the most advanced open source and community funded game engine. I don’t know yet if this is something that we can realise and when.

I can only say that I have started learning Godot.

Best of luck to all of you with your games, no matter what engine they might be built on!

Sincerely,

Asbjern Thirslund - Brackeys

 

https://www.youtube.com/@Brackeys/about


Text version, thanks to @[email protected]:

Image Text

BRACKEYS

Hello everyone!

It’s been a while. I hope you are all well.

Unity has recently taken some actions to change their pricing policy that I - like most of the community - do not condone in any way.

I have been using Unity for more than 10 years and the product has been very important to me. However, Unity is a public company. Unfortunately that means that it has to serve shareholder interests. Sometimes those interests align with what is best for the developers and sometimes they do not. While this has been the case for a while, these recent developments have made it increasingly clear.

Unity has pulled back on the first version of their new pricing policy and made some changes to make it less harmful to small studios, but it is important to remember that the realities of a public company are not going to change.

Luckily, there are other ways of structuring the development of software. Instead of a company owning and controlling software with a private code base, software can be open source (with a public code base that anyone can contribute to) and publicly owned. Blender - a stable 3D modelling software in the game dev community - is free and open source. In fact some of the largest and most advanced software in the world is built on top of open source technology like Linux.

The purpose of this post is not to denounce Unity because of a misstep, to criticise any of its employees or to tell anyone to “jump ship”. Instead I want to highlight the systematic issue of organizing large software projects under a public company and to let you know that there are alternatives.

I believe that the way to a stronger and more healthy game dev community is through software created by the community for the community. Software that is open source, democratically owned and community funded.

Many of you have been asking for us to produce new tutorial series on alternative engines such as Godot, which is currently the most advanced open source and community funded game engine. I don’t know yet if this is something that we can realise and when.

I can only say that I have started learning Godot.

Best of luck to all of you with your games, no matter what engine they might be built on!

Sincerely,

Asbjern Thirslund - Brackeys

 

https://www.youtube.com/@Brackeys/about


Text version, thanks to @[email protected]:

Image Text

BRACKEYS

Hello everyone!

It’s been a while. I hope you are all well.

Unity has recently taken some actions to change their pricing policy that I - like most of the community - do not condone in any way.

I have been using Unity for more than 10 years and the product has been very important to me. However, Unity is a public company. Unfortunately that means that it has to serve shareholder interests. Sometimes those interests align with what is best for the developers and sometimes they do not. While this has been the case for a while, these recent developments have made it increasingly clear.

Unity has pulled back on the first version of their new pricing policy and made some changes to make it less harmful to small studios, but it is important to remember that the realities of a public company are not going to change.

Luckily, there are other ways of structuring the development of software. Instead of a company owning and controlling software with a private code base, software can be open source (with a public code base that anyone can contribute to) and publicly owned. Blender - a stable 3D modelling software in the game dev community - is free and open source. In fact some of the largest and most advanced software in the world is built on top of open source technology like Linux.

The purpose of this post is not to denounce Unity because of a misstep, to criticise any of its employees or to tell anyone to “jump ship”. Instead I want to highlight the systematic issue of organizing large software projects under a public company and to let you know that there are alternatives.

I believe that the way to a stronger and more healthy game dev community is through software created by the community for the community. Software that is open source, democratically owned and community funded.

Many of you have been asking for us to produce new tutorial series on alternative engines such as Godot, which is currently the most advanced open source and community funded game engine. I don’t know yet if this is something that we can realise and when.

I can only say that I have started learning Godot.

Best of luck to all of you with your games, no matter what engine they might be built on!

Sincerely,

Asbjern Thirslund - Brackeys

view more: next ›