@SubstantialFrivolity's banner p

SubstantialFrivolity

I'm not even supposed to be here today

4 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 22:41:30 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 225

SubstantialFrivolity

I'm not even supposed to be here today

4 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 22:41:30 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 225

Verified Email

I don't have it, but as someone who really disliked BOTW I'm curious if you can answer a few questions.

  • Are there actual dungeons this time?

  • Are there more than 4 items in this one?

  • Is there normal music in the game, not just ambient stuff?

  • Is weapon durability still a thing?

  • Is the world a bit more pleasant to go through? In BOTW it was just so boring to traverse, there was nothing interesting between point A and point B - but there was a lot of ground to cover between point A and point B.

To be honest I don't have high hopes that Nintendo did a good job on this game given how bad I felt BOTW was, but I am hopeful to be wrong. I generally love Zelda games, would like to be able to enjoy this one too.

Disappointing, but not surprising. Thanks for the answers! It sounds like this is another case of "it is a good game but a bad Zelda", just like with BOTW.

Goes to show that people will praise a shit sandwich for its distinguished aroma if indoctrinated since birth.

Eh. I genuinely cannot tell the difference between anything above 20 FPS or so. I've played games with as little as 15 FPS back in the day (on a shitty PC), that was noticeable but anything else is all the same to my eyes. Which is quite nice for me, as I don't have to worry about framerates ever.

Yeah. OP is either a troll, or so far gone in mental health that nothing any of us says will reach him. Either way, best not to bother.

When I think back on Christianity, there are certain concepts that that strike me as peculiar. One of these is the concept that a one's salvation may hinge on a chance encounter with another person whose intervention changes one's life for the better. It strikes me as chaotic, random and therefore unfair.

For what it's worth (not that I am trying to get you back in the fold or anything), that is not really true as far as I know. The way I was always taught is that God deals with people with their circumstances taken into account. So if you consciously reject Jesus, you will likely be judged unrighteous after death (though in the end only God knows, at best we can just speculate). But if you just wind up never having heard of him during your life, that isn't going to factor in. Instead you would be judged based on how much you tried to do right insofar as you were taught it, and what your conscience nudged you to do.

Obviously Christianity has many different schools of though, so there are probably Christians who really do believe that if someone in an isolated Amazon tribe dies without ever having heard of Jesus, they're going straight to hell. But it definitely isn't what I was taught, at least.

I was taught that they believe in fate, so that your salvation was decided by God before your birth and your actions don't matter, but I'm no expert.

In my experience only some Protestants believe that (notably Calvinists). Though, I also like the explanation I've read from Catholics. God exists outside of time, so he sees all of your life in one instant, like a single endless now. Therefore he knows what will happen, but you have free will nonetheless.

I realize that not everyone will jive with that explanation, but I personally rather like that one.

I don't really have any substantive thoughts to offer, but just wanted to say I enjoyed the post. I think you're basically right that we need to make sure we give children ways to face challenges on a small scale, so that they know how to face challenges on a larger scale. I thought that Haidt's The Coddling of the American Mind talked about this really well. But I don't know how we do that, especially since society currently seems to be optimized towards protecting children from everything at all costs. You need to first get people to walk back from that, but how we do that or where we go from there exactly idk.

I was homeschooled, from 2nd grade all the way through the end of high school. My siblings were homeschooled all the way. Basically here is why it started, as I understand it (secondhand obviously, since I was too young to remember it well):

  • During a parent-teacher meeting, my 1st grade teacher told my parents that I was reading at a 5th grade level. My parents were concerned that I would be bored and stop trying to learn, so they asked if the curriculum could be advanced some to keep me challenged. They were told no, the curriculum was fixed and it was what it was.

  • They enrolled me in the local Catholic school for the rest of 1st grade, and decided that wasn't to their liking either. Not sure why - they never told me, and I was never curious enough to ask. I would guess expense (farmers don't make much money), but not sure.

  • The next year they started homeschooling me, and my brother/sister as well (though at different grade levels, I'm 4 years older than my sister and 5 years older than my brother).

For all of us, through the 8th grade we were given books to self-study various subjects (math, English, social studies, and so on). My mom bought the books from Bob Jones University Press, and was pretty hands-off when teaching us. She was there for questions, but otherwise it was self-directed study. The books were... OK. They are fundamentalist Christians (Baptists specifically iirc), and that bias really came through strongly in the books at times. They were pretty openly anti-Catholic at times, and you best believe that the books had things to say on things like evolution being false. But apart from when the ideological bias got in the way, I recall the books being fairly decent.

Starting from 9th grade, I was enrolled in a correspondence course for high school (so that I would get an actual diploma and not have to take the GED, iirc). I was part of a program called Christian Liberty Academy Satellite Schools. The main difference for me was that for major assignments (essays, tests etc) I had to mail them in for someone at the physical school to grade them. There was some feedback from the teachers at the school IIRC, but not a whole lot. It was real impersonal. But I did OK (not great, due mostly to my own academic laziness than anything else). When they got to 9th grade, my brother and sister went through a similar program, but a different school providing it. They had a personal teacher assigned for all the years of high school, and she would work with them a lot more on areas she saw needed improvement when she graded their work. Still not the same as having an in-person teacher (naturally, this was like 2004-2005), but a lot more hands-on instruction than I got from HS.

Along the way my parents participated in various activities like area homeschool groups (where we would do things like take music lessons from a retired music teacher, for example), had us in 4-H, we were involved in church, and so on. That more or less covered the "teach the kids how to interact socially" aspect of school for us.

My brother, sister and I all wound up graduating with real actual HS diplomas, and my brother and I went on to college and both did well (admittedly: my laziness meant I did poorly in my early 20s, but finished in my late 20s and did very well). My sister did not go to college but she was really, really not cut out for it so that's not really that surprising. We are all relatively well-adjusted adults, or at least I'm unconvinced our flaws are due to our school situation. So, it went OK.

All that said... there were downsides I feel. The big one is like I said, my mom was very hands-off as a teacher. This got worse as we got older, because Mom started to have physical problems that kept her in pain a lot of the time. Some days she would take meds for her medical condition that just put her straight to sleep, and she'd be that way most of the day. For my brother and me, that was actually OK. We're bright, and while we fucked around a lot (as kids will) we would eventually do our work. For my sister... not so much I think. She has severe dyslexia, and I think she really could've benefited from a teacher who a) was more hands-on, and b) had more training/experience dealing with kids who had learning disabilities. I need to stress my sister is not stupid, she's actually very smart and continues to do self-directed learning to this day (on topics she finds interesting). But she really struggled hard in school, and while I can't prove it I think it didn't have to be as hard for her as it was.

Second, while my parents made efforts to socialize us I personally (can't speak for my brother or sister) had issues learning that stuff as easily as it seemed like my peers did. I was always, always the odd kid out until I was decently into my teenage years. Some of that is because kids are mean and single out anyone who is different (I got flack for having big ears in 1st grade for example), but some of it I do feel is due to how I was socialized relative to a lot of my peers. Eventually I learned, of course. Nowadays I have no trouble socializing compared to anyone else. But it took a while to get there, and there were a lot of times (even as late as being 16-17 years old) where I would commit a faux pas that I honestly had no idea was problematic. So I think that part of my education didn't go as well as it could have. My brother seems to have done OK in that regard, and my sister... she's just a really eccentric person and always has been. I don't think anything would have helped her with that (if anything, public school might have made her a huge bully target).

So, do I have regrets? Not really, no. I made it to adulthood fine and I don't think I'm (at this point at least) any worse off for it. My brother the same (imo), and my sister probably came out somewhat worse for it (though it's debatable, as I feel she definitely would've been a bully magnet in the school system). So overall, not a horrible track record. But if I were in my parents' shoes, I'd do a couple of things differently. First, be more active in the kids' education than my mom was. I really think it wasn't a great showing from her even if it worked out OK. Second, when one of my kids showed signs that maybe they had unique challenges I wasn't equipped to deal with, consider looking at more traditional schooling options where they can get their needs met better. Knowing my parents, I doubt that was ever on the table for my sister.

Whether or not I would homeschool my kids (I don't have any) is tougher. I think public schools today are honestly kind of fucked in a lot of ways. I would be absolutely horrified if my kid came home with their teacher or peers teaching them about how they were non-binary or transgender or something (just one example, but a hot button topic these days). So I feel like if I wanted my kids to grow up with good values and culture, I would have to do something to change their peer group and who was teaching them. IDK if that would be homeschooling, or a private school, or what. But I would at least consider homeschooling to be an option on the table for my own hypothetical kids.

You might want to open a bug report on the github project or something. That's the best way I can think of to get attention on the issue. That or ping Zorba, but I doubt he wants that to become the normal way to report issues. 😉

I don’t know why gun rights advocates don’t just admit that yes, if all guns were confiscated and a very strict licensing regime was put in place gun homicides would likely drop substantially.

Because the way politics works in the US, all the nuances and caveats you listed (and which are a key part of your overall point) would go completely unheard by people. We live in the country of the soundbite (not that we are necessarily unique in this, of course). The instant gun rights advocates said "I admit that if all guns were confiscated, murder rates would go down", every single gun control proponent would be writing editorials that said "even gun rights advocates admit gun control works". They would run campaign ads that go "Senator so-and-so admits gun control works (insert sound clip here). Yet he voted down these measures every time, blah blah he is the devil vote for me instead." In short, it would be a complete disaster for gun rights and for the careers of those who advance them. The latter outcome is probably the bigger of the two, of course, since politicians are pretty much the most self-serving creatures in existence. But even people honestly considering the cause of gun rights would have some concern about the former outcome.

It's kind of like when Scott Alexander writes an essay about some controversial topic or other. Every single time, he includes a million lines trying to say "yes, if you take this one sentence out of context it sounds bad but that's not what I'm saying and you fail at reading comprehension if you think that". Every single time, there's at least one person who is unscrupulous enough to take that sentence out of context and use it to demonize him. And every single time, Scott is caught off-guard because he made the mistake of believing he was dealing with people who are acting in good faith. Or at least until he stopped writing about controversial topics (which is probably the right call for him).

So yeah, that's why gun rights advocates don't do what you're suggesting. I'm not saying that's praiseworthy of them, or even that it's merely acceptable in a "I don't like it but I understand" kind of way. Just that's why. The gun rights people are playing politics, and politics is full of flat-out evil people who will twist your words into a weapon against you the instant they can. So they prioritize not giving those people ammunition.

You're not wrong, but... have you looked at the US lately? We are the very epitome of short-term thinkers. Corporations routinely burn down long-term profits for next-quarter profits, voters flip-flop between candidates in the two parties because they are pissed off at the current one... but don't bother to remember that they're voting in the party they were pissed off at 4 years prior. People cripple themselves with debt and make their life awful in the long run because they really want something right now. We are a nation of short-term thinkers. It should hardly be surprising that extends to politics as well.

The logic (which I disagree with, mind you) is that women are being brought up to the baseline level of accommodation by such programs, not that they are receiving preferential treatment.

Did you read the whole post? The fact that it's impossible to actually eliminate guns is the very point that @2rafa was making.

Do you mean season 3? I haven't watched season 3 yet (because I haven't felt like being sad), but my brother has been watching and said he has been enjoying it same as usual.

Of course, it's hard to blame Yud for being wrong when, when written, everyone else had ideas that were just as widely off the mark as he was.

No it isn't. When you are speculating wildly on what might happen, you rightly bear the blame if you were way off the mark. If Yud wasn't a modern day Chicken Little, but was just having some fun speculating on the shape AI might take, that would be fine. But he chose to be a doomer, and he deserves every bit of criticism he gets for his mistaken predictions.

Or the fact that Congress seems completely unwilling to pass bills that have a single subject. Gotta tie everything together so that you can't block bad legislation without having unpopular knock-on effects! Bonus points if you make it so that the artificial consequence of your legislation is "the federal bureaucracy and the military shuts down", because there's basically no law so bad that a president will ever accept those consequences to veto it.

If the car comes with them yes, otherwise no. I don't see the value so I wouldn't pay extra for them.

Assuming you mean "red flag" as in "a sign this person is bad news and you shouldn't be around them, no it's not a red flag. If anything, I would say that it's a red flag to believe something so trivial is a red flag.

I also do the same method you do. Granted my socks are 95% the same, so there's no need to match unless I'm wearing dress socks. But when I need socks I just grab two matching socks from the drawer.

Political issues are touching more and more of what used to be the private sphere as state power increases. Almost every decision a person makes in the modern world has some attachment to politics. It’s everywhere, every song on the radio, every movie and TV show, sports, at work, at your kid’s school, and social media. There’s no issue that isn’t ultimately political including the food you eat, the brands you buy, whether or not you recycle, how you talk to people, what kind of religion you practice, you name it, and there’s politics.

I think that this one is downstream of whatever the real problem is. People turning toxic and inserting politics into everything seems to me like the symptom, not the disease. It's definitely a problem though.

Look, you're allowed to care about the clothes you wear. Where it becomes a dick move is when you start looking down on others for not caring as much as you do. Lighten up.

To me, the way to depolarize it is to go back to the antiquated notion that the government is not supposed to be your parents. It’s not supposed to protect your feelings or baby proof your environment. It’s not supposed to enforce quotas or workplace behaviors. And barring really catastrophic danger, I don’t think the government should be heavily involved in safety issues.

I don't know if this would fix it, but damn I would love to see this. I really resent that people are trying to turn the government into my mom. Yes, I don't necessarily make the best choices (though I obviously try). But they're mine, dammit. That's the whole point of being an adult. Stop trying to get the government involved. It almost certainly doesn't know better than me, and even if it did, it's infantilizing and insulting.

I own a suit (including vest), as well as a few different dress shirts to go with it. I wear it... not even once a year. I actually like dressing up, but the number of occasions where it's appropriate are almost nil. Basically just weddings and funerals.

I don't know what your normal day entails, but I do not see people's socks in the course of a normal day. Also like @official_techsupport says, black socks go with absolutely everything.

And appealing to the community of artists produces ugly novelty purely for the sake of novelty (in this day and age at least), not greatness. Knock him all you want, but Thomas Kincaid is way better than the vast majority of modern art. At least he produced something beautiful and enjoyable.

What if the truth value of Darwinism had little, if anything, to do with its acceptance by the academic establishment, and the falsehood of intelligent design had little, if anything, to do with its rejection by the academic establishment?

I would say you're not entirely right - but you're not wrong either. I don't know where exactly the genuine belief in truth ends and the "get the outgroup" begins, but somewhere along the line it turned into that. I don't think it started that way. I think that in the early 20th century, the people who were fighting for evolution to be taught (at great social risk, I might add) were doing it because they genuinely believed that it was the truth and it was important. Otherwise they wouldn't have been willing to risk the costs they did. But by the time you get to the early 21st century, I think it was 90% dunking on the outgroup. Like yeah Richard Dawkins may believe he's fighting a genuine battle for truth (as much as he was an insufferable cock about it), but he was in the minority of his faction. Most were smug internet posters going "haha young earth creationists are so dumb, am I right guys!?".