faceh
9mo ago
if you listen to the lyrics
Well see there's the issue. I won't listen to the lyrics, so any irony is quite literally lost on me.
But I'll take your word for it.
The best self-defense weapons is one you will actually carry and are trained to use.
A Kubotan is high on the list because it can be attached as a keychain and is easy enough to deploy with a bit of practice. No excuses not to have it with you almost anywhere.
The primary consideration in my mind is also whether it is suitable for multiple attackers, and either allows you to deter a whole group of attackers at once or inflict enough damage quickly enough that you can escape.
Pepper spray kind of works here but I really, really dislike that it is easily defeated by goggles, or just covering your eyes.
A compact handgun still reigns supreme, to me. Not too big a fan of 'subcompact' or 'micro' styles as they start to trade off too much ammo capacity, accuracy, and stopping powah. Anything is better than nothing, though.
And perhaps above all, having a buddy or two who know how to handle themselves trumps all. Makes you less of a target to start, massively multiplies the force you can bring to bear, and can patch you up or drive you to a hospital if you do get injured.
I have a weird love/apathy relationship with open world games. I generally analogize them to a Golden Corral Buffet vs. a six course gourmet meal that is most AAA scripted games.
The buffet just has cheap, rapidly prepared food available in quantity, you pick and choose what you want, and gorge yourself on desserts if you so desire. Just don't expect high quality, and don't complain if you don't like what you eat, you picked it from the available options! That's open world games. A gourmet meal prepared by a chef will strictly control the presentation and actual preparation of the food you eat, and forces you to consume it in a particular order, but is generally crafted specifically to create the most delicious experience such that the meal itself is memorable to you.
I love a well-crafted story in a single-player game even if it is just a railroad that takes me from set-piece to set-piece (in the Uncharted series, sometimes the railroad IS the set piece) but sometimes I'd rather just watch a movie.
Open world games at least allow me to try things out that the game designer didn't knowingly program in so I feel less like I'm a slave to someone else's whims (shoutout to Bioshock 1). But the game worlds inevitably feel like they're miles and miles wide but barely ankle deep. Oh sure its cool that I CAN climb/fly/grapple hook my way up that mountain in the distance, but there's no compelling reason to GO up there. No, finding some random collectible isn't a strong impetus. "Because its there" really only works for real life summits. I can cheat-code my way to the top of an in-game mountain which takes most meaning from the 'achievement' of climbing it.
Batman: Arkham City was probably my favorite Hybrid of the two. Plenty to do in the 'overworld,' no 'hard' railroading but the story progresses in a direct linear fashion by imposing subtle restraints on your ability to explore. Ample surprises to find if you explore, and seriously well-crafted set-pieces at deliberate intervals. You WANT to explore, and exploring gives you useful rewards, and most of the 'random' encounters were actually fun and challenging, and the story wasn't an afterthought.
I realized the one experience I crave from open-world games is the feeling of being stalked implacably across the landscape by an enemy that is more dangerous than I am but also slightly slower so that if I concentrate on covering distance I can outpace them but every time I rest or get delayed I risk them catching and killing me.
As in, being the 'prey' in The Most Dangerous Game, and genuinely having to survive on wits and scavenged weapons as I try to find a way to bring the pursuer down.
Not many single-player open-world games provide this experience, especially in a mostly dynamic/unscripted way where I can keep on running for hours on end and have close encounters with the pursuer that don't have a predetermined outcome.
Getting in a running gun battle with a squad of trained killers who I have to slowly whittle down with traps, extremely limited ammunition, and improvised weapons in a geographically interesting locale would be an enjoyable challenge to me. Lol, I just realized that a game where you play as a random thug or henchman being hunted through the streets of Gotham by Batman and Co. would be AMAZING.
Far Cry 2 was able to do a pretty good job on this front, since enemies had impressive AI and the game mechanics constantly put you at a disadvantage, so it was possible to be caught off guard by an enemy squad and have to flee into the jungle and have them continue stalking you persistently while you maneuver around trying to score a kill and then run for cover as they return fire. The newer games in that series made the enemies too impotent to inspire the same fear, and also they're generally too dumb to actually chase you far.
It sounds like Breath of the Wild is the equivalent of a child's playground with lots of points of interests to play on and various toys which you can implement interesting strategies with, but no real risk inherent to the game and a very static, unresponsive world that doesn't necessarily invite different approaches. Can't speak to the story, which has historically ALSO been a strength of the series (don't care what anybody says, I enjoyed Twilight princess).
I guess I remain very hopeful that generative AI will allow open worlds to get a lot more dynamic and gain some depth that makes them more fun to play around in for longer, and can create a more complete illusion of a lived-in world where you are a smaller part of the whole.
I can see it working under extremely specific circumstances, but so rare that to carry around feminine hygiene products at all times on the offchance of it creating an opportunity to hit up a lady is utterly irrational.
Seriously, you could make a better opening by pissing yourself in front of her. No girl wants to publicly acknowledge her period, at least peeing your pants allows you to use self-deprecating humor.
The best case scenario otherwise is that you become 'that' friend who is kept around because he's exploitable and desperate and is so far from a possible romantic interest he may as well be a eunuch.
she's cheer captain and you're on the bleachers?
Jesus, that is a Swift song, isn't it.
But yeah, she sells songs about emotional turmoil resulting from, bluntly, questionable decisions in life from the position of somebody who has never had to actually suffer any real traumas that I know of. This doesn't invalidate her art, but you do wonder how a normal person actually identifies with her.
I admit I like the music video, but the Song about a toxic falling-out with an old friend seems like one of the most female-coded passive aggressive screeds with the least constructive message imaginable. "Some unstated bad thing has occurred, and now we are sworn enemies for life, also I hate you."
EDIT: Wait, I forgot that she surpassed that one a couple years later, with an even MORE passive-aggressive screed with even LESS clear motivation.
Compare that to, say N'Sync's classic Bye Bye Bye (also a neat music video) which is also about the termination of an established relationship which it carries with it pangs of regret but stating a clear determination to end things because it is necessary for one's own well-being, and desiring to make it as clean a break as possible. Undertones of desire for vengeance and bubbling spite are nowhere to be found.
And it's that she's the most famous female singer in the world who sings normie songs about normie problems, but releases albums with titles like "The Tortured Poets Department" like she's some sort of radical high artist crafting poetry from Reading Gaol.
I'm laughing because I was driving home from work this week thinking about how "The Tortured Poets Department" sounds like it would be some high-concept, lyrically complex compilation of musical artists digging deep into their soul to perform their most profound songs with serious emotional weight.
But from what I gather, its a collection of the most privileged-white-girl laments possible set to basic guitar and piano melodies. And even the fans have it rated as her worst album overall.
The positives have to be weighed against the negatives. Maybe certain classes of immigrants are net-negative and a better immigration policy would be able to discriminate against these people but I don't think the UK is at the point where all immigration is net-negative.
There's a bit of a weasel going on with this argument.
I am actually willing to admit that immigration taken completely as a blind, nonspecific, aggregated economic phenomenon is probably a net positive, although this assumes an overly simplified utility function/value system. And perhaps ignores likely long-term second-order effects.
But the negatives (increased housing costs, increased crime, depressed wages for low-skill labor, and loss of social trust) are almost entirely borne by the middle and lower economic classes. They can't afford to move to native enclaves and they have much less political influence to keep immigrants out of their existing communities.
The positives will disproportionately accrue to the upper class professionals/elites whose skilled jobs are not threatened, who can send their kids to selective private schools and can use their clever NIMBY policies to keep the actual immigrants away without triggering accusations of racism. And the neighborhoods they live in are already too expensive for immigrants anyway so it doesn't even put much upward pressure on their housing costs. Cheaper labor and goods and political influence and the warm and fuzzy feeling of giving a disadvantaged minority a leg up are all unalloyed goods for them, so of course they will continue to support the same policy.
And this is of course exacerbated if the government's formal or informal policy is to favor immigrants for monetary handouts, jobs and/or slots in the good schools. Or if they implement policing/justice policies that treat immigrants with kid gloves while natives get the full force of the law.
Cheaper labor costs is generally a benefit to a nation so long as it translates to lower prices for critical, basic goods and services. But the specific kind of labor immigrants provide in this case is almost universally unskilled, which means both that high-skilled (i.e. the kind that produces the most value/unit!!!!) labor does NOT become cheaper... and in some cases demand for skilled labor like doctors or bankers will increase with immigration which will push those prices UP! Immigrants need medical care and financial services regardless of their contribution to society.
So the phrase "immigration is a net positive" can be true in a broad sense but still not accurately describe how the actual citizenry experience it in their day-to-day lives.
If it turns out that it's a net negative for ~50% of the population, an almost neutral factor for another 30%, and then a MAJOR benefit for that last 20%, overall it could be characterized as a positive if you collapse it down. But then the question is *why should 50% of your countrymen be forced to absorb the costs?"
And more to the point, if 50% of the country absorbs the cost, they may be motivated to vote against immigration, but if the other 50% of the country believes its a net positive, they'll vote in favor of it happily... and in a democracy that probably means the half who are getting the shit end of the deal keep losing the votes.
There's also the question of whether or not you count the wellbeing of the immigrants themselves in the equation. Because a third world migrant moving out of a hellish ghetto in their home country to a slightly-less-hellish ghetto in a wealthy country where they get a small welfare check is indeed better off, and so including them in the equation makes the case that immigration is good stronger... but also feels like cheating.
"If we import 1 billion foreigners who are each made 5% better off by migration, and 10 million natives are made 25% better off by migration, but the other 90 million natives are made 50% worse off, its a massive net positive to the group as a whole and thus morally required!"
"Okay, but explain the assumptions about why the 'import 1 billion foreigners' step was necessary at all? Surely there are other options we could try that don't impose such costs on the natives?"
"I just told you, it makes them better off on average."
"Right but it seems like you're conflating the interests of the 1 billion foreigners and the 100 million natives even though you don't have to?"
"Shut up, bigot."
"Also, I can't help but notice that you are likely to be one of the 10 million natives whose life is better off..."
I think there's an element of old high-school social dynamics that she brings to the 'adult' world,
She's the popular girl with who is mildly talented but is also pretty and somewhat charismatic. And so the mere fact of her being popular means all the girls like her (or wish they could be her) and thus she can do no wrong even if her behavior is actually toxic in many ways.
Guys who didn't function well in the high school social environment probably have a reflexive dislike to seeing this dynamic recreated. I know I feel a bit of that when I hear about her dating the Football star who could have any girl he wants.
(I don't hold this theory strongly as I try not to have strong opinions on Taylor Swift)
faceh
9mo ago
Ironic to mention the Beatles given how Beatlemania was driven by young white women too
Actually it's probably tax policy beyond anything.
Because if it were housing policy, the outmigration should be driving house pricing back down towards 'affordable' levels too.
You get guys like Bezos and/or Billy Joel ducking out of places with income tax to places without it, it seems pretty obvious.
And you can argue he's not representative, but Musk moving his companies to Texas also indicates the issues blue states are creating for themselves.
But again, you do you. Just silly to scapegoat MAGA when you can't point to places where MAGA actually has political control of government and are 'a drag on the nation,' compared to places where blue tribe controls government and is literally driving people away.
faceh
9mo ago
I think Team Biden has done an extremely good job and that Team Harris will be a continuation of Team Biden.
I have a Pier in Gaza to sell you if you're willingly advertising this as your true belief.
Price is $320 million btw.
The irony here is that MAGA hasn't had control of any major institutions at the Federal level, but we can objectively see people Voting with their feet to leave places like California (Kamala territory) and Minnesota (Walz territory) to go places where red tribe rules.
This is what we call a 'revealed preference' and its perhaps the most hilarious possible indictment of blue tribe governors as theydrive away their tax base
So I dunno, if you really want to show MAGA what for, just move to/remain in one of those blue tribe strongholds and let everyone else go where they please, please.
Well that warms my soul a bit. I sometimes think about doing an expanded writeup on the topic, but there's no need since Nicholas Taleb literally wrote the book on it.
Since I do promote this idea as pretty much the "grand unified theory of institutional decay and dysfunction" I'm glad it hits the mark. I really don't want officials and CEOs committing Seppuku over their failures (well, maybe in rare cases), but I also can't help but think sometimes that my dream job would be The Assassin from Serenity.
faceh
9mo ago
Man, I was going to post it under the OP but didn't want to be too irritating.
But yeah. Some accountability to filter out the incompetence WOULD BE A NICE CHANGE OF PACE.
faceh
9mo ago
And there's your sign.
If she can finagle a situation where she thinks she has an advantage, then she may take the risk.
faceh
9mo ago
Trump had pretty much zero political achievements when he ran in 2016,
And virtually everyone he ran against had a ton of political failures that he could pin them with because holy cow the years leading up to Trump were dismal in terms of anything good coming from the political process.
People don't remember that pretty much nobody on the debate stage could make a case for their great leadership or successful policy goal they'd helped push through. They all came across as feckless, useless grifters in the sense that they were asking for support when their records showed that they'd not done anything to earn it.
At this point, Trump AT LEAST can say he helped bring about the most conservative Supreme Court in decades, and can continue that trend if he gets elected and has support from the Senate.
The facts don't matter, the reality doesn't matter. Only the optics matter.
Yeah but the optics didn't used to be COMPLETELY illusory.
If we're through the looking glass at this point then literally nothing matters. Run whatever candidate you want and voters will accept just about any narrative about them.
faceh
10mo ago
There's not a lot of time to kill the honeymoon here. It's August.
The irony is that there's not a lot of time to build up a campaign and a candidate's public image, but they're attempting it anyway.
Not sure how to react to the revelation that you DON'T necessarily need the 1 year plus leadup to the election in order to build public support for your candidate.
Why not have one month of campaigning, hold all the primaries on the same day in July, and then we can just have a 3 month race for president starting August. Much more efficient.
faceh
10mo ago
Hadn't really clicked in that way but yeah, her actually being in the driver's seat is inherently a step up from Biden, when you couldn't be sure who was driving, and it seemed like several people pulling in different directions half the time.
I just would not want to be a passenger on that particular bus.
faceh
10mo ago
Yep. And none of those really qualify as 'achievements' in my book.
Although in modern politics it probably makes strategic sense to avoid having your name tied to any major event or policy lest those end up going sour in retrospect.
I don't so much mind people trying to hype their candidate (although its spooky how they all pivoted on command when doing so) but c'mon at least realize what you're trying to shove down our throat.
I guess I'm just remembering that previously it was expected that the candidates for president had DONE SOMETHING demonstrably leaderlike in order to show they were up for the task of managing an entire administration. Acting as VP is usually an argument for this, but for some reason we've not been allowed to analyze her time as VP too closely.
She'll 'have' to do something if the polls are still close or Trump is narrowly leading in the 'must-win' states. Its not clear the media can drag her over the line with independents this time around.
A few offhand predictions, in no particular order:
-
Harris slips a critical few points in national polls and swing state polls.
-
Some new actual crisis WILL emerge between now and the election (odds seem to favor it, with so many in the last two years alone).
-
Her first public outing without an inherently friendly audience, which might be a debate with Trump, does not go well.
-
Some GOP candidate will probably screw up in their congressional campaign which narrows the contest for congress. And for some extra tinfoil:
-
Biden kicks the bucket sometime around late September and Harris gets a sympathy bump in the polls, and also makes her President thankfully with only a very narrow window in which to screw something up before the election.
faceh
10mo ago
I really get the sense that Harris is making her own strategic choices for this campaign and/or listening to her more radical staffers for advice.
faceh
10mo ago
Thankfully I live in Florida where the Governor managed to sort the problem out quickly six years ago so not really a concern for me.
Of course the same Governor is so popular that Florida isn't even a swing state anymore so I might stay home just because I won't impact the outcome even if my vote IS counted.
faceh
10mo ago
Harris is bad product with good marketing, so I continue to be near certain she ends up dragging in the polls when the honeymoon period ends and she actually makes public appearances.
I've been asking blue teamers to name the most impressive achievement attributable to Harris.
Aside from "got picked as VP" then "got picked as Presidential candidate" there's literally nothing. Every other attempt to rehab her image failed, too. She's got almost every liability Biden has aside from age, yet none of the experience or achievements to her name.
Unless they pull the "she makes no appearances publicly unless absolutely necessary" strategy that Biden pioneered, there's simply no possible way her public persona improves the current situation, and many ways it harms it.
Ironically Walz might have been chosen simply because he's really good at putting a decent spin on his own bad policies and that's literally what Harris needs to do right now.
I've seen plenty of defense of it, and the 'decrying' only came from people with a vested interest in keeping blacks from voting for Trump.
And shows Trump's ability to triangulate himself into an advantageous position even after intentionally entering a possibly hostile arena. Same thing he did back in 2015-16 during the Republican Debates.
Almost goes without saying Harris would never put herself into a situation that could even BE that hostile.
Strong agree.
"You're stranded, you're sick, almost everyone will try to kill you on sight, except a handful of companions who are reliable but have dubious loyalties. Oh and your weapons will break without warning. Try not to die."
I won't say I hated the following entries' gimmick of "Young American guy visits foreign country and becomes skilled badass" but it didn't have the same feel.
Playing as a morally ambiguous mercenary in a story with no obvious heroes and accepting missions from BOTH sides of a civil war and killing people who aren't framed as soulless henchmen to an evil regime is much better at conveying a sense of isolation and detachment from civilized society. You're not fighting to save your friends or, even, to get back home.
Hell, even the ambient audio from enemies made it feel like they ALSO got trapped in this shithole country because they wanted to earn a quick buck and had to fall in with one side or the other of the war. They have no allegiance to the nation and they're trying to kill the protagonist solely so he doesn't kill them first.
I keep praying for a remaster/remake that changes up the wonky weapon inventory system, fixes the respawning checkpoints, adds in predatory wildlife, and leaves EVERYTHING ELSE the same.
More options
Context Copy link