cjet79
Anarcho Capitalist on moral grounds
Libertarian Minarchist on economic grounds
User ID: 124
cjet79
1d ago
I haven't encountered it. I've tried changing my writing by removing extra crap. Having shorter writing probably helps.
cjet79
1d ago
Never bothered me, but ya this game does have that kind of camera. Except when steering the ship. The forward mast thingy gets in the way.
Getting snuck up on isn't a thing. There is an on screen indicator when you have an enemy's attention. And the camera is zoomed out enough in melee that you always have enough reaction time between enemy on screen and enemy attacking.
Stealth on your part is also not a thing. Which is probably consider 'good' but I guess that's a more controversial opinion than some of my other "good" items.
cjet79
1d ago
Never heard of that term, but the camera has been fine in my experience. Camera control via the mouse. Movement with WASD
cjet79
1d ago
I've been playing Windrose. It's a pirate game. It's closer to a survival game like Conan exiles than it is to other pirate games like Black Flag.
The good
- The base building in the game has a well working quick build mode. Usually I find it a chore to build bases in survival games but this turned it into enjoyable again.
- Combat against same level enemies feels good. There is an element of danger and some amount of basic tactics you need to adhere to or you will get wrecked.
- Sailing on the seas feels cool, the waves are big as hell out in the ocean. Its not a flat expanse of water. The waves add a challenge to the naval combat, where if you don't aim well your shot will hit the wave blocking enemy ships or pass over them as they ride a dip into the waves.
- Story has a pirates of the Caribbean vibe going. With some weird magic creating the undead.
The bad
- The combat is entirely gated by your character and gear level. You can fight maybe one or two levels up, but more is usually a slow suicide fighting a few levels down is just easy. This applies to ground combat and ship combat.
- The map is totally blank until it is explored. And finding all the tiny islands is annoying.
- The combat system works much better on open land. On ship boarding actions you can get screwed over randomly. The safe/optimal strategy is to take pot shots at the enemy from your own ship and let your own boarders slowly whittle them down. But that strategy is boring and takes a while.
- The fast travel system has artificial limitations. Limited number of locations you can setup and a limit on where you can place them.
cjet79
5d ago
The government has been defendants in Keepseagle v. Vilsack or Cobell v. Salazar.
I get what you are saying this looks like and is obvious corruption. I don't disagree!
I would be happy and thrilled for a rule to exist that prevents this sort of thing. Or at least for the rules that should prevent it to be strictly enforced.
Trump banned this practice via an agency directive in 2017 and the Biden administration overturned that ban.
This second trump admin approach might be much more successful in actually banning the practice.
cjet79
5d ago
There is, but the government has also been defendants like in Keepseagle v. Vilsack or Cobell v. Salazar.
I get not knowing about those cases, I had to refind their names after learning about them a long time ago. But I've been telling you that such cases exist. I'm not making shit up to be difficult or play the "both sides" game.
It's a good norm to have to not let the government settle out into a third party slush fund. But the norm is long dead at this point.
cjet79
5d ago
I don't know what to tell you, this has been happening for at least a decade.
Volkswagen "Diesel gate" settlement. The bank of America and Citi group settlement.
It's common enough that in 2017 Trump 1 banned the practice of having government settlements give money to third party NGOs that were not victims or parties of the original case.
I don't have to imagine it being abused for causes I don't like (I don't even like this cause.) Because it has already been abused repeatedly.
I just get frustrated when I see some story that is basically "Democrats outraged that trump is flagrantly violating a norm that they have been quietly violating for a decade".
It's not that I'm happy with Trump violating the norm, I just see it as already dead.
cjet79
5d ago
I don't feel there is a significant or meaningful difference between pretending to be adversarial and just dropping the pretending.
cjet79
5d ago
I followed your topic down the rabbit hole. You brought up the slavery comparison, not me. If its besides the point, then you agree with what I first said about it being a bad comparison.
opening up the possibility that anyone can use a bullshit lawsuit to fund whatever pet projects you can't get congressional appropriation for.
As others have pointed out, this is not opening that possibility. The ability to influence policy and set preferences via lawsuits has existed for at least two decades. Easy one to find:
The outcome of Massachusetts v. EPA in 2007 was that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gases qualify as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act, allowing the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate their emissions. This landmark decision affirmed the responsibility of the EPA to address climate pollution and protect public health.
Via an act of supreme court the EPA was granted sweeping jurisdiction over all greenhouse gas emissions. Which is any gas burning engine.
cjet79
5d ago
I am very much not an accelerationist. I have a family, a home, and a stable life. If there is such a thing as a "freezist" that is what I am.
Norms violations in politics are handled are handled in one of two ways. One way is that you punish the violators. The other way is that you imitate the violators. The first one protects the norm, the second one fully destroys it.
If you want norms to remain you have to punish people who violate them. This is an anti-accelerationist stance.
cjet79
6d ago
Eh, not a great comparison.
Trump is a case of a specific wrong against specific people perpetrated by specific agencies. Its then a general payout from the government to the conservative movement in general.
Black slavery was also all of those levels of specificity. But with enough time removed it is instead all moved to generalities. Its black people in general that were wronged, its white people in general that carried it out, and its supposed to be paid for by all americans in general.
The areas where I say "general" are the problem.
For IRS targeting: I would have liked to see specific people in the IRS or the Obama administration sent to jail for the IRS tax targeting. I'd like to see unconstitutional orders treated the same way the military treats illegal orders. "I was ordered to break the constitution so its not my fault" should be an admission of guilt not a defense against prosecution. Bribing off the republicans seems like something that politicians on both sides are happy to take as a "compromise" rather than handing out punitive sentences and discouraging similar things in the future.
For slavery I'll give you a very specific example. I'll remove as many generalities as I can.
My ancestors owned slaves. We are close to a 100% certain that we know some of the descendants of those slaves (slaves tended to take on the last names of their former masters when they were freed). Lets say we can identify approximately 100 descendants of both the slave owner, and 100 descendants of the slaves. Its been about 5 generations. Assume no intermarriage so everyone is generally tracing only 1/32ndth of their ancestry to this generation.
None of the wealth acquired from the slave owning is still around. There is one house that was the former plantation house, but it was lost in bankruptcy and then re-bought. Nearly all other wealth of the slave owning family was also lost in that bankruptcy (took place in the 1880s).
How much do I a descendant of the slave owner owe to a descendant of the slave?
cjet79
6d ago
This is low effort culture warring. Don't do this.
- Avoid low-effort participation.
- Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be.
If you are going to make this sort of comparison defend it or explain it.
cjet79
6d ago
Let's recap this whole thread
- MC posts about the fertility crisis.
- Self made writes about technology being a solution to avoid hard political problems.
- I respond more specifically about which technologies I think might help the most.
- You respond to me disagreeing with the usefulness of a particular technology, and suggest that the government should just force people to accept the danger.
- I say I don't think the government will be able to do that.
- You say if I care about democracy I should figure out how to make the government do that.
You have repeatedly and increasingly centralized the discussion around government. Every step was you moving in that direction. I joined this specific thread to talk about technology effects on fertility.
There are like a dozen other posters that will be happy to defend and discuss government effects on fertility. I'm not one of them. I don't care to play "pretend to be an authoritarian in order to save democracy". I like neither system so roleplaying as one to save the other has no appeal to me.
Go have the discussion you are looking for with someone else I am not the one you want.
cjet79
6d ago
Your objections seem maximally hand wavey 'yeah just massively alter society to fit this new goal, democrats did it back during covid'
cjet79
6d ago
The human body is not really meant to be cut open. We have figured out ways to do it that minimize harm and damage, but the risk doesn't go away. Roll the dice enough and eventually some bad luck arises and someone dies or gets a life altering injury.
Doctors don't want to kill people, insurance companies and hospitals don't want to get sued, patients don't want to die or be disfigured. It's generally in everyone's interest to minimize the number of major surgeries or at least only do them when the danger of not doing them is greater.
An implantable pelvic floor device sounds exactly like the kind of thing that fails a risk reward test for surgery.
A government that overrides all the other people involved in the situation and says "do it anyway" is not going to be popular for saying that. If it's a democracy, they are likely to be replaced.
No, all the sailing is fake
More options
Context Copy link