Soteriologian
21hr ago
I do enjoy attempting challenges myself, as well as watching them.
One other thing I like about challenge runs is that they often have some sort of amusing meaning internal to the game's universe. For example, when you beat Starcraft 2, in the final cinematic there's a line to the effect of "Just think on all the men we've lost", which, when you beat it without losing a unit, has the hilarious implied answer of "Actually, sir, it seems we didn't lose anybody." Similarly, Persona solo hero runs are basically beating a game about the power of friendship without the power of friendship -- great man theory confirmed. Challenge runs are often designed around some deference to the game's aesthetic, and even when they're not, e.g., hardcore, the difficulty at least lends more weight to the dialog. When the characters talk about how difficult getting to this point was, it actually feels true, rather than the "ya I barely paid attention to the mechanics and I just waltzed through" you get with a normal playthrough.
In contrast, speed runs often break the aesthetic of the game, rather than complement it. What does it mean in Elden Ring when you run off the edge of a cliff, heal yourself, and final boss whom you've never even seen just dies? That's just lame.
Soteriologian
22hr ago
I found speedrunning entertaining initially, and still do to some extent, but in recent years my interest has shifted to a related but different category: challenge runs.
Challenge runs are fundamentally different than speed runs in that there is a bar to be cleared, and once the bar is cleared, that's it, the challenge is complete, and you can do something else. This stands in explicit contrast to speedrunning, where you can invest indefinite amounts of resources chasing the metric harder in ways that are often not compelling: e.g., repeated attempts to farm the best RNG.
My favorite challenge run category is hardcore, in the sense of permadeath. The first time I encountered it was in Diablo, but Diablo was specifically designed with "recovery" mechanics in mind that make it actually not that hardcore in practice (specifically, levels are quite easy to gain relative to quality loot, and the latter is not lost on death if you have it in your bank, so you can "bounce back" after a death very quickly). Hardcore is actually a lot more fun in games that weren't specifically designed for it, the most popular being Classic WoW. But the neat thing about the challenge is it's applicable to almost any game, because in nearly every game ever made, simply beating the game is, in some sense, a string of segments which together constitute a no-death run, so hardcore is just "can you just do it right the first time?"
The reason I find hardcore so much more interesting than speed runs or even other challenge run categories is that it emphasizes a completely different skill set: most challenges incentivize a high-risk high-reward just-try-again-if-you-got-it-wrong playstyle, and hardcore is the exact opposite. In many games, it's almost a test of character more than a test of skill. For example, in Classic WoW, you can basically beat the challenge with minimal effort by just making a rule that you'll only kill single mobs a couple levels lower than you. Yet despite this very simple path to victory, I think only around 1/1000 players actually complete the challenge. It's extremely difficult to exercise the level of self-control required. One quick anecdote: a player was talking in zone chat about being super tempted to do some high-risk quest for this juicy 14-slot bag or something, and I was like "But you realize you're not actually getting 14 loot slots, right? You presumably already have what, a 10 or 12 slot bag in your worst bag slot? So you're taking this risk for 2 slots. The question isn't whether the risk is worth 14 slots; it's whether it's worth 2 slots." And he replied something to the effect of "wow, when you put it that way, this is not at all worth it, thx". It's very easy to trick yourself into thinking you're taking worthwhile risk when you are not!
Anyway, enough of hardcore. Challenge runs generalize well beyond this. Other popular challenge restrictions that apply to most games include things like "no items." But they can be anything. For example, one run I did last year that I found quite fun was doing Final Fantasy XII with gambits-only (defined as starting once you get past the tutorial and gain access to gambits, obviously), i.e., once you're in battle, just put the controller down and watch. It actually wasn't as hard as I expected, but it was quite enjoyable and felt totally different than playing the game normally. And it doesn't feel like watching a movie at all. More like watching a children's play when you're the director, and you sit there helplessly hoping they won't mess it up and make a fool of themselves and you.
For Elden Ring or other Souls games, popular challenges are beating the game at level 1 and doing bosses without getting hit. For Pokemon, Nuzlocke is by far the most popular challenge category. For popular RTS games like Warcraft 3 and Starcraft 2, you can beat the campaigns without losing a single unit on the highest difficulty (GiantGrantGames has some popular videos showcasing this), which I suppose is kind of like hardcore but feels a bit different.
In conclusion, I find challenge runs much more entertaining than speed runs. They rarely entail abusing glitches in the game engine, they aren't usually plagued by uninteresting incentives like RNG farming or decaying into some flavor of "who can play DDR the most precisely"? They have a wide range of difficulties to choose from, some being very easy, e.g., no items in Pokemon or Persona, up to nigh-impossible, e.g., beating Hades on 64 heat. And most importantly: there is a point at which you can say you are done.
Soteriologian
1d ago
I think you're correct. The administration overestimates its cultural clout. The perception of Kirk as a hero is entirely in-group: post-incident polling shows most Americans didn't know who Kirk was, and among those that did, he was quite unpopular, disliked at a 2:1 ratio -- worse than even Trump himself.
That said, I think it's going to get worse. Commenters here have previously speculated that the administration's attempts to crash the economy (in real terms, not in asset prices' terms) while simultaneously pushing through an enormous spending bill targeted at procuring large numbers of disaffected young men is preparation for war in some capacity. Whether with China, Iran, or "Internal Enemies", who knows.
But even among the right-wing thought leaders, this has been viewed with extreme suspicion: Musk has openly condemned it multiple times, Fuentes... well, his interpretation is obvious. And the administration has no competing narrative at all. There really isn't a single thought leader on Team Trump. Kirk was arguably the closest thing to it, and even he was feisty enough that large numbers of conspiracy theorists seem to think he was assassinated by the administration (or those behind it) for failing to toe the line properly on important matters. I do not believe this is the case, as I've previously elaborated, but this is nonetheless a narrative that even on-site was immediately perceived as worth amplifying: notice George Zinn, an old Jew, promptly rising up and claiming he was the shooter. An obvious lie, yet not one lacking in narrative meaning or intent. Netanyahu simultaneously releasing a statement with Trump confirming Kirk's death is similarly coy chicanery, like a rooster crowing to claim credit for the rising sun.
I don't pretend to know how all this will play out, but I can at least claim this with confidence: resentment and spite are not the ingredients of a winning movement, and I perceive these in abundant supply.
Soteriologian
6d ago
I’m an interlocutor
I noticed that after my comment, yes. My apologies.
Also moneyed interest thinks Harvard is impressive. You seem to crave that?
Not really. I’m pretty dismissive of American universities in general. You have people like Peter Navarro or Eric Weinstein getting doctorates from Harvard. Not only do I think these people aren’t particular bright, I think they’re downright fraudulent.
In contrast, take someone like Grant of 3B1B. I’m sure he has credentials of some sort, but I don’t know or care what they are. I consider him very high human capital because of the quality of his work.
Finally, Kirk built something at scale whereas Fuentes has not.
With big money behind you, everything is at scale. You can take almost anyone and make them a celebrity by throwing enough money at them.
Fuentes has centralized power actively opposing him, booting him off every major platform, and yet he still thrives.
I’m sorry but I don’t know what sort of epistemic model you come from where a plant given water and fertiliser in a climate-conditioned greenhouse is somehow more impressive to you than one tossed into the desert that manages to take root and grow anyway.
Soteriologian
6d ago
I do think Kirk coming to him played a big part, yes. I think if the visit hadn’t been scheduled so close, it’s likely the shooter would have not attempted kill anyone.
Why? The simple fact that he could have killed Kirk earlier, but never bothered until he happened to show up nearby.
Soteriologian
6d ago
Well done! I think your analysis is good—even with team pressure, many still chicken out, so the solo chickening rate is almost certainly higher than that rate.
Soteriologian
6d ago
Obviously the way to know is to look at the unfiltered post set.
For example, you have people in this very thread contending “oh, the markings on these bullets prove he’s a leftist! obviously they’re not meaningless game references like the markings on these other bullets.” And of course no mention of the one that’s coded right-wing, “If you read this, you’re gay!”, because that one doesn’t fit the narrative.
Look, I’m sorry, I don’t enjoy this discussion with you. I do not find it meaningful, so for the last time, thank you, and good night.
Soteriologian
6d ago
It’s just sampling bias. For example, if you trudge through my Reddit history and find only the posts that sound left-wing and present those, you could probably convince someone I’m a leftist. There’s far, far more evidence than could be presented for this shooter! But it’s not because I’m a leftist, it’s because I have many thousands of posts, and you only need a handful to present for a case.
Similarly, you could find all the horrible contraband I’ve posted on HBD and easily prove I’m a fascist.
None of the underlying evidence changed; just the choice of what to magnify.
Soteriologian
6d ago
I’ve gotten several good responses.
Soteriologian
6d ago
Rationalist napkin math is a terrible form of analysis
Ok, I’m going to have to stop you there. We are not meant for each other. I think it’s better if we go our separate ways and talk to other people. Best of luck.
Soteriologian
6d ago
I think you misunderstood my comment. I’m saying of course they’ll turn up evidence of more leftist radicalization because that’s what people want to be found.
Soteriologian
6d ago
I think this is a reasonable assessment.
Soteriologian
6d ago
As far as I know we don't know any of his social media accounts besides his Steam account and a blank FurAffinity account.
That’s kind of my point. Where’s his Reddit account ranting about the evils of capitalism? Where’s his #girlsforkamala posts on Instagram?
The entire internet is scouring for this stuff, and we’re simply not finding anything. We’re finding less on his politics over his entire life than you’d find about mine in the past 3 hours of my posts.
I’m going to call that a non-political person, I’m sorry. The replies I’m getting just reek of wanting him to be Political so you can say he was radicalized by le evil leftists and start your Long March through their institutions. I don’t need to come here to get that analysis. It’s already all over Twitter. Just go play over there, that’s where your friends are.
Soteriologian
6d ago
There is an answer to the question, and the answer is “yes, almost certainly.” The poster didn’t want to say that because it makes them look bad, so they said they don’t know.
The answer that would have impressed me would be “Yes, but the better question is what percentage of the time does someone get cold feet?” and then some Gwern napkin math. I’d be proud and tell you good job.
Soteriologian
6d ago
I believe the incestigations are going to keep turning up evidence that he was a radicalized leftist
Incestigations do tend to produce distorted results, I hear. So you’re probably correct, Rorschach.
Soteriologian
6d ago
You’re the one who brought up credentials. I’m the one who judges them by what I’ve heard them say (which, to be fair, is minimal; I don’t listen, I read). And by my judgment, Fuentes was more impressive.
I frankly don’t give a rat’s ass what moneyed interests think is impressive. They think Glenn Beck and Rachel Maddow are great. I think these people are useless and ignore them.
Soteriologian
6d ago
I have no idea
I advise you not to play on prediction markets, and to consult someone you trust before making large financial decisions like signing a mortgage.
Soteriologian
6d ago
Hah, alright big-brain, let’s play:
Has there ever been a shooter who got cold feet at the last minute, decided not to pull the trigger, and went home quietly?
Come on, show me your epistemic prowess. Impress me.
I’m sorry but none of this strikes me as serious or meaningful except the fact that he specifically mentioned disliking Charlie Kirk to his family, which is in harmony with my thesis anyway.
Let me clarify what I mean by he doesn’t seem political: he doesn’t seem to have ever gone to any sort of political rally or activist event for any party, he hasn’t made any sort of public statements on social media accounts about this or that politician, etc. His voter registration is explicitly “No Party.” And perhaps most importantly, he didn’t leave a manifesto to tell us why he did what he did. Even Luigi half-assed a few paragraphs for us. Uncle Ted wrote us a proper epistle. I’m genuinely not trying to cover up for some pet left-wing beliefs of mine or something. I don’t live in Burgerstan, I honestly don’t care that much about your dumpster fire either way. I’m saying I think the shooter was basically non-political because I actually believe he was basically non-political. You’re free to disagree.
I simply do not see any evidence that he cared about politics at all beyond this one act. Which is why my analysis is what it is in my original post.
EDIT: for what it’s worth, the Dramatards have found evidence he was on LoveForLandlords (a popular rdrama psyop back in the day), which is an explicitly satirical subreddit of left-wing causes (mocking the working class and mocking LGBT)
Soteriologian
6d ago
That’s not really what I meant. I mean his responses to content placed in front of him are much more intelligent and coherent than what you’d see from, say, Joe Rogan or Tucker Carlson or Candace Owens. He never falls for the egregious plebe stuff like “wow, could Ivermectin really help with cancer?” or “Is Macron’s wife a transsexual? 😱”
I realize this sounds like a painfully low bar but… I mean, that is in fact where the bar is. News commentators in visual media really are functionally retarded by our standards. All intelligent discourse takes place through textual media.
Soteriologian
6d ago
Fuentes has nowhere near the scope of name recognition and credentials that Kirk did
Kirk is a college dropout. I’m not sure what you mean here.
Obviously Kirk has broader reach, but it has nothing to do with Kirk’s superiority; he has reach for the same reason Miley Cyrus did: he’s backed by big money. Fuentes is not backed by any mainstream organization. In fact, quite the opposite: they’ve gone to great lengths to outright suppress him, and have still failed.
You don't have a good theory of mind for the current generation of left-wingers, who aren't the theory-reading pedants of the last century, but more often than not are driven by an impulsive and anti-intellectual tendency to essentialise their entire political opposition into one monolithic force of evil.
I mean, this guy had a Harvard-tier ACT score. He shouldn’t be completely retarded. Then again, he performed a high-profile assassination while chatting with his friends on Discord, so maybe +2 SD doesn’t even render one out of the “meat comes from the supermarket”-tier zone for Zoomers. Honestly, if this is the case, you’re correct, I really have no theory of mind for people that retarded, and my psychoanalysis is better reduced to “guess it was a chimp-out, skibidi.” I mean come on, how does someone not know to not take their cell phone with them on this little excursion? Snowden was 10 years ago, and even without that, you’d still have cell blocks and SIM tracking.
Why don't you address the less low-hanging fruit of my reply to your original statement, i.e. the obvious political content inscribed on the bullet casings?
Isn’t it just memes from a video game? I mean, yes, technically Helldivers 2 does have political content, but given the level of cognitive ability we’re dealing with here, I’m not going to do some Elden Ring-tier deep-dive into the game’s themes and symbolism to figure out what the shooter was trying to say. He’s just saying stupid zoomer nonsense.
Soteriologian
6d ago
I said it directly adjacent to the Scott reference on depression in Africa. Come on man, stop conflating pedantry for insight. I don't care about gotchas; I care about understanding stuff.
If you want a zingers and gotchas, there's... well, Charlie Kirk's TikToks.
Soteriologian
6d ago
Bro, what are you even trying to say? Do you think Scott was actually saying there were literally 0 people in the continent of Africa with depression until whites brought the concept there? Obviously not. Obviously the contention is the prevalence skyrocketed once the concept became a "thing" in the collective mindscape.
Come on, man, what are we even doing here.
Soteriologian
6d ago
It isn't, though. Just look at the content of those lists instead of Googling for gotchas and pasting them. Most of the incidents are just accidents or personal beefs that happened to take place at a school.
The "bring a gun to school to shoot as many people as possible" thing was rare pre-Columbine, precisely because it did not exist in the popular memeplex.
Yeah, I watched the Haelian video when it came out (I used to watch him semi-frequently) and my immediate reaction was "someone is going to see this and say 'yeah right, watch this.'" I can't recall off the top of my head exactly what, but I do remember there was something about his probability analysis that made me think "This RNG isn't quite as improbable as he's making it sound."
Amusingly, Angel1C's 64 heat run was kinda confirmation of Haelian's analysis, in that the run went almost exactly as Haelian predicted it would need to. The bigger egg on Haelian's face should have been the second time 64 heat was done, which received much less fanfare and was done with a totally different build using the Rama bow.
Haelian is quite an accomplished runner himself. He's held many world records at various points, and iirc has the world first for doing a no-hit run in Hades.
EDIT: I think I remember -- it's the fact that you can get keys, which do indeed give you the ability to re-roll even on 64 heat. So that aspect of the dark mirror is, weirdly enough, not entirely turned off. You just start the run with 0 re-rolls.
More options
Context Copy link