cjet79
Anarcho Capitalist on moral grounds
Libertarian Minarchist on economic grounds
User ID: 124
cjet79
2yr ago
Nerds have become common enough that they are no longer relegated to the fat out of shape basement dwellers of lore. Plenty of them are health obsessed or in shape. Zuckerberg is an example of this. I think if this interface change happens it will not impact their social status.
I also find it interesting that you claim eye tracking will benefit the in shape people. Do you know where this technology was originally developed? For helping paraplegics interface with computers.
I think this technology will find some traction. There has been a trend towards minimizing movement and effort to get more out of our computer interactions. However it's only going to be a temporary stop. The end goal is direct brain to computer interfaces. Why fire signals to tell your body to do something that tells a computer to do something? Why not just fire signals to tell the computer directly to do the thing? Elon Musk is trying to skip to that end goal with neuralink.
cjet79
2yr ago
Then it ceases to be politics, but there are always other things that remain political. Almost any group larger than 5 people has politics, and certainly every group larger than 50 people.
cjet79
2yr ago
Lately I've been playing starship troopers extermination.
My favorite games tend to be strategy and survival games. I really enjoy multiplayer PvE experiences.
cjet79
2yr ago
I suppose that is an argument against single player games. But it also seems like an argument against reading fiction books, watching movies, and consuming stories in general. Are you suggesting people should give up all of those things as well?
cjet79
2yr ago
I'll use an example: when Trump won in 2016, Trump supporters were happy. But Hillary supporters were very unhappy.
cjet79
2yr ago
If there were a bunch of p-zombies that all the real humans could beat them that would help.
The problem of politics seems unavoidable. People want to have more resources than their rivals. Their rivals want the same in turn. The winning move for humanity is not to play zero sum games.
I think war is a negative sum competition. Politics is an improvement over that, but that doesn't make it good.
cjet79
2yr ago
I play a lot of video games. Its probably most of my free time. Though I try not to let video game time intrude into my time on other activities like family, social, work, and sleep. So it is actually my free time, and not an expanding black hole of time.
I can sort of claim that balance right now, but I haven't always been able to claim it. I'd say when video games start being more than the sum of my free time I have been uncomfortable with them as a negative presence in my life.
There is a privileging of the "real world" in your thinking and most people's thinking. But I think this privileging is incorrect, or at least badly applied. Much of the "real world" is actually just taking place in people's heads. Consider an election. Imagine you spend dozens of hours reading about the various candidates and researching political philosophy. You spend time discussing politics with people on the street. On election day you go and vote. The only thing you've really done "in the real world" is take a few trips outside, and make some motions on a piece of paper, everything else happened in your head and other people's heads.
For the people saying "the imaginary stuff in our head doesn't matter" my claim is that none of them ever actually go down the rabbit hole of all that implies. Most of what just about everyone does is just a thought inside their head and other people's heads.
And you can take that realization and be a nihilist and say nothing matters. Or you can go the opposite direction and say meaning is what we make of it. If your imagined participation in "politics" makes you happy, then do that. If your imagined participation in a video game world makes you happy, then do that.
Video games, if anything, are one of the more positive hobbies to engage in. Most of them are designed to leave you entertained and coming back for more (some are just designed to milk people of money that have gambling addictions). Other hobbies like engaging in politics, watching the news, or watching sports do not have any specific design for positive sum human enjoyment. They are much closer to zero sum games, where one person's happiness is offset by another person's disappointment.
cjet79
2yr ago
But I also kind of get off on roleplaying therapist.
I do feel like we are being unwillingly recruited for her group therapy sessions. I do not like roleplaying therapist.
cjet79
2yr ago
Ah I blocked felipec at some point, so I'd stopped noticing him. Maybe that is why this new poster annoys me so much.
cjet79
2yr ago
Feels oddly familiar.
Who?
just posts top-levels and takes shots at people who are allegedly overcomplicating things
Feel free to report them. I thought about taking some action after their third kind of lame top level post in a row. But I didn't see any reports (maybe I just missed them), so I thought it might just be me getting annoyed over something other people don't mind.
cjet79
2yr ago
We are definitely the baddies.
I think I agree with that rank ordering
[asking her to leave] > [ghosting] > [bullying]
But I think the incentives are all screwy. Anyone who asks her to leave is probably going to get reported by her. The default behavior going forward will probably be to ghost her a bit. If someone tries to be "nice" and "inclusive" and make sure she is not ghosted, she will probably end up getting bullied by the people that are tired of dealing with her.
I'm in the league to play a sport, have fun, and stay in shape. I'm not here to be someone's group therapy outlet. There is a sliding scale of selfish <-> selfless. And I am admittedly much more on the selfish side when it comes to inter-personal interactions.
cjet79
2yr ago
No, underwater hockey. Can't say where since that would narrow my identity down to a dozen people.
cjet79
2yr ago
Hilariously this is sort of what my wife suggested before she stopped herself and realized "oh, im suggesting bullying her out of the league ... let me think about this some more".
She is more likely to report the bullying I think. Someone on our mailing list jokingly called one of his friends fat, and she reported him. She is a little fat herself, so was obviously sensitive about that.
Also she is an anxiety ridden mess. Cries at tournaments, gets devastated by the slightest criticisms, etc. I feel like the slightest bullying would destroy her, or send her on a crazy war-path. I'm not really interested in dealing with either of those.
My default option right now is that she will just quietly never be on the team again, and never allowed to register for tournaments we host. No reasons ever given. I've also thought about removing her from the email list, but that would be obvious and lead to questions.
cjet79
2yr ago
Yeah I was looking through the national league's website last night and wondering if there is some process for basically exiling people.
cjet79
2yr ago
I might have someone else do it. I'm willing to do it partly because I'm not very concerned with the consequences. She will hate me and report me to the league organization. Thing is, the people in league organization probably dislike her too. They ratted her out when she complained about someone else.
The only real evidence / reason we have for kicking her out is that she is annoying and multiple people don't want to play on a team with her. I suppose I could collect a list of all the people who have told me "dont put me on a team with her".
I don't really want to appear as the "good guy" when all is said and done. I also find her annoying and would rather never talk to her again.
cjet79
2yr ago
Part of the problem is that we don't have a great justification. She just annoys a lot of people. She cries at tournaments, seems to be an anxiety ridden mess, and is unpleasant to be around. Also tattling on someone to the national org for some light ribbing between friends has not endeared her to anyone.
cjet79
2yr ago
I play a Co-Ed recreational sport in my spare time. One of the players has annoyed enough people that I'm thinking of kicking her out. But she has shown a willingness to report people to the national board for minor offenses.
Any thoughts on how to remove her without triggering national board reprisals?
cjet79
2yr ago
This is a bad comment. You've already recently had a warning, so I am going to give you a 1 day ban. Use the time to read and lurk more to understand the explicit and implicit rules of themotte.
Do not make drive-by comments where you drop a link that only tangentially relates to the comment above. You need to actually engage with what the previous person wrote. If you can't reach a minimum level of engagement, then dont comment at all.
Also, don't be coy. Speak plainly. Don't force anyone to drag out what you mean across multiple comments.
cjet79
2yr ago
Imagine being trapped in a tin can with Papa John.
Easy there Satan... Some horrors are too much for mortal contemplation. lol
Would have been nice if papa John were on the sub tho
@netstack, @orangecat, @FiveHourMarathon
I got some reports about these comments being low effort, antagonistic, and "reddit tier commentary". I don't think the comments are bad enough to escalate to the level of being an official mod warning. But I do just want to put out a reminder that people come here for a certain level of quality in their posting, and they don't always appreciate these types of comments.
cjet79
2yr ago
That sorta makes sense to me. But at the same time we don't really offer audio discussion here.
Maybe if they had asked to have private text conversations elsewhere it would be more of a problem.
I'm confused because I thought this was already the case. I have been trained by many annoyances to never open twitter links, because it always prompted me to sign in. I got an account way back in the day, and occasionally used it to sign in if I absolutely needed to see something on twitter. I never once tweeted from that account.
The sign in walls with facebook and instagram never annoyed me in the same way. My reasoning is probably a little irrational, but I feel like those profiles are for sharing personal info, and you should engage with them on a personal level. The vast majority of facebook and instagram profiles are for inter-personal sharing.
Twitter just doesn't feel the same. Everyone there is trying to shout as loud as they can at the rest of the internet and they want everyone to see it. And it strikes me as weird when a barrier is placed in front of that sharing. Its like when I go to youtube to watch a funny TV commercial, and youtube serves me up a video ad. There is a disconnect in incentives between the content creator and the content provider. The content creators (users) are saying "share this as widely as possible, with as few barriers as possible", and the content providers (twitter, youtube) are saying "I make no money on ads if there are zero barriers to sharing".
More options
Context Copy link