Yeah, the original there were a handful of unlock events for most of the status and health level gambits. They could have used a bit more granularity and evenness (why is ally: lowest hp or foe: lowest hp a mid-game thing?), but it did help a bit. And the ones you could get from chests in the original also avoided the whole 'giant list of shit to buy' problem Zodiac Age had.
In exchange, Zodiac Age hide a lot of spells that were previously buyable by putting them in chests. Which, imo, feels a lot worse. Though at least it did fix the damage limit that made a lot of those higher-end spells useless.
Even the best Final Fantasy are beautifully flawed -- anyone that thinks VII was perfect can shove it up Guard Scorpion's tail. XII's world always struck me as much more interesting than its plot, just as the combat itself seemed more interesting than the gambit system you end up spending more time working around (though I've long been a Tales of fan so I may be judging the gambit system a little too harshly).
Agreed that the remake is in an awkward place. Like X and XI, it's in that awkward early stage of 3d work that's just high enough quality that it can't cruise on retro feel or imagination, but still so low-res that it's painful to watch and not easily vastly improved with emulation and upscaling... while the remaster also screwed around with enough of the systems that it's not a clear upgrade from gameplay perspectives. I prefer job systems in general, since some of my favorite games in the series have been FFXIV and the original FFT (and arguably Legend of Mana, though handwaves), but it definitely moves away from the learn-and-automate feel of the original. I'd guess that it was set that way under the assumption you'd have played the original enough that it'd just be repetitive? But that's not really right, either.
That said, both the original and remaster seem like they've been big sources of Lessons Learned for other games in the series, so well worth knowing just for that (in contrast to something like FFType0).
Hope you enjoy the Switch 2.
I'd like to believe that, but Gorsuch wrote Vanderstok: solely a textual interpretation of statute, very well-documented and very clear law, also a complete duck because it'd be unpopular.
The minimum sentence under state law for a single one of these acts would have had the exact same punishment. So it's either no effective increase in sentence for the third (conviction for) rape, or someone who committed enough (almost-certainly repeated) rape of two very young minors, after having been caught by DNA evidence, would have been allowed to plea to a much lesser crime than a single one of them.
Which isn't better.
((On the upside, pretty good chances it's a life sentence, no matter what the court decided! Though from a rule of law perspective, not too happy about Kennedy v. Louisiana ending up there, either.))
Maybe it'll have some marginal impact on parole hearings, but I think NJ's 'mandatory minimums' restrict parole eligibility, too.
To steelman, let's start with a different hypothetical law: African-Americans are prohibited from using metformin, and whites from using topiramate, for the treatment of weight loss, and for the sake of the hypothetical, assume that both formulations are off-label. In one sense, these are neutral laws, where both are prohibited from using a drug for a given diagnosis. In another sense, they aren't: one race is prohibited from using one drug, and another from another entirely different one. Recognizing them as 'similar enough' risks a bunch of absurd arguments, like banning one from doing something very common and the other from doing something that's facially similar but never actually desired. Similarly, it'd be nonsensical for it to be perfectly okay to do these laws as one unit, but consider them discriminatory if the state enacted them piecemeal.
That doesn't necessarily make them good or bad policy. Hence some of the specificity in my hypothetical: there actually are some reasons you might want gender- or race-specific restrictions on those two specific weight loss drugs. But because the aftermath of Caroline Products is such a clusterfuck, almost everything passes rational basis scrutiny, and the exceptions are so unusual that they're usually treated as some special not-really-just-rational-basis example. Heightened scrutiny is necessary before courts even consider whether a law's motivations are more than pretextual.
((This distinction is kinda what nara_burns is complaining about as a distinction between Kagan and the other left-leaners on the bench: Kagan recognizes that this is still an early preliminary injunction hearing and SCOTUS has had relatively little briefing on the facts, so it's should still be plausible for the state to present support for the bans that would survive intermediate (or even strict!) scrutiny.))
There's a lot of flaws to this steelman: the Caroline Products footnotes are completely unmoored in actual constitutional text, what types of discrimination and categorization gets protected is a result of arbitrary coincidence or political demand more than real analysis, courts routinely put their thumbs on whether a particular law is analyzed under one framework or another, so on.
((It doesn't help that the majority in this opinion is muddled, even by the low standards of a Roberts opinion. Whether a particular patient can be diagnoses with "male-pattern hair growth" is absolutely tied to biological reality, but that biological reality is a result of sex. And that's the example Roberts picked!))
Medicare estimates a national average compensation rate around 7.5k USD at hospital facilities (you may have to click the down arrow for "more cost information"). Most insurance companies (have to, ACA) cover it for gender care, but how that works out with deductibles is a treatise on its own.
I'm ... skeptical about the Milgram theory in general, and for this behavior in specific, but even presuming that they're correct and generally believing the Beware Trivial Inconveniences theory, I'd be really worried if a plane ticket and a couple weeks in an Extended Stay Express were enough of a trivial inconvenience, especially compared to everything else involved.
For 'bottom' surgery, yes (ish; not everyone does actually go to The Best, and some transmen don't do what they'd count as bottom surgery and just get a hysterectomy that their local surgeons can do). For top surgery, it's a lot more varied, and I personally know trans people who've had mastectomies or breast augmentation in Red Tribe states. For other surgical procedures, as far as I can tell, very long distance travel seems an outlier. You might hike to the best facial cosmetic surgeon in the region, but you don't need to cross the ocean to find someone pretty good at it.
((And that's ignoring stuff like laser hair removal that gets categorized as 'surgery' for stupid medi* reasons.))
The procedural posture here is also weird, even if no one but Kagan wants to rest their opinion on it. This is an appeal of preliminary injunction that was denied, while other preliminary injunctions or final judgements against other trans minor laws were upheld. Including one where SCOTUS pared back a wide preliminary injunction... to just the plaintiffs).
So now there's a SCOTUS-approved preliminary injunction for an equal protection challenge that SCOTUS just said can't win, sitting in the 9th Circuit. Except they didn't really hold that, they just made it really clear what the breakdown of how they hold the balance of law. Except in this case, the only person treating it like it's not final judgement was Kagan, and that in a minority-of-a-minority dissent.
laws that classify in some other way, which only get rational basis review (almost impossible for a law to fail this one).
I'll caveat that there's two forms of rational basis review: the normal form a la FCC v. Beach Communications where the law is upheld even if the government provides no good reason for the statute, so long as the court can imagine a single even incorrect cause; and the Cleburne version where the law is held to be motivated by animus, and then the statute near-always falls even if there is a named good cause. Some of the finangling in the oral args were about that.
There is some wiggling around to deal with Gorsuch's opinion in Bostock (which is what causes Alito to concur in parts of the opinion rather than the full thing since he dissented from Bostock), but Gorsuch joined this opinion in full, so apparently he didn't have a problem with the Court somewhat limiting Bostock here.
Yeah, that's a mess, and I dunno how he's juggling it. Roberts says tries to distinguish by saying the law here distinguished based on a transgender diagnosis rather than sex, using the metaphor of hirsuitism, but since whether someone will be diagnosed with hirsuitism depends on their sex that seems transparently wrong (and he even spells out that this is often called "male-pattern hair growth"). Presumably he's done that because he knows a hard limit on medical exemptions recognizing sex will result in the same law coming right back up with the medical exemption excised, and that's worse from a pragmatic perspective, but as a matter of law it's clear as mud.
Gorsuch signed onto it, so I guess he must agree? Or maybe he didn't want a bunch of circuit court misreadings if this case ended up in a 4/1/1-3 mixed-majority. But the reasoning here's vague enough that red circuits can draw every other transgender case that isn't specifically a CRA thing (and maybe even some that are) as about Skrmmeti-like distinctions, and blue circuits can draw every other transgender case as more like Bostock.
Thomas or Barrett's distinctions are clearer, but in turn they're a lot more strict.
I expect red states to increasingly adopt anti-hormone and anti-puberty-blocker legislation, and blue states to explicitly protect it, and probably we will also start seeing "trans your kids by mail" services not unlike what we have with abortion. So the victory will be mostly symbolic (which may count for something, but may not).
Tbf, surgical interventions tend to be a lot more central to many of these controversies, and they're a lot harder to send by mail and a lot easier to enforce laws against. I'd expect some of that turns into 'holiday' surgical trips, but there are limits to how that can be practically done given what degree of surgical interventions are long multistage procedures including post-operative care, and we have started to see (and I expect will continue to see) people moving from one state to another over these policies.
This, although I'll caveat that I was kinda expecting more of a punt than this opinion ended up being.
Ar'kendrythist handles power scaling better in the first few books, where there's not merely charged conflict but the protagonist being a pretty severe underdog. Even well after that, there's always a bigger fish until (arguably) the back half of the last book, and that's the point where the protagonist dying stops mattering and what the villain could do to everybody else becomes more important.
While it's still a little obnoxiously progressive-in-the-inevitability sense even by my standards, that works out pretty well for keeping the tension high; what fixing a wasteland of slavery and infighting even looks like is a more interesting question than who's power is more maximum and can blow up a city (though that happens a lot too). The author's also willing to kick out legs under the protagonist often enough that even some situations where it seems like they should be certain to win, a problem will show up and whatever the heroes built collapse. Never quite to the point of being unfair, though it gets a little close at times.
They have wide discretion because most of the INA is subject to "may" clauses instead of "shall" clauses right now.
And this guy has been told, repeatedly, that the very specific law he claims has "may" clauses had "shall" clauses, already; that there was a massive court case over it, and it didn't do jack or shit.
Most of the common complaints are about minimum memory and CPU footprint; VSCode takes comparable resources to run as far more fully-featured IDEs. But if you've got the specs these are unlikely to actually feel bad, it's just kinda goofy.
The biggest problems are pretty hardware-specific, but they've been pretty bad when they pop up. I've had VSCode pull 16+GB memory (especially bad on an 8GB-RAM system) or peg multiple threads at 100% core utilization just idling, all with the default configuration, no extensions. A lot of it seems very dependent on renderer, especially since it started defaulting to a hardware renderer even on Intel integrated GPUs, but sometimes 'normal' developer workstations with multimonitor configurations have gone really wonky. While a less common use case, I've seen bigger problems with massive files in VSCode than in VisualStudio, Intellij, Android Studio (which isn't great itself!), or NotePad++, sometimes to the point where I had to shutdown the computer because VSCode was capping out CPU utilization so high that I couldn't use the mouse or keyboard.
((I've also had problems with deployments of VSCode, rather than VSCode itself. Which, tbf, usually aren't even the Electron developers faults, but since it includes things like a 40+ GB electron update, it's still worth keeping in mind before committing to VSCode as a day-to-day dev environment.))
VSCode defends itself in many cases by pointing to issues with extensions, and to some extent that's fair: just as it's not the Electron devs fault that a distro screwed up once, it's not VSCoders fault that a random html/css extension can peg a cpu. You can't build a framework that can contain every sufficiently dedicated forkbomb without making it useless. But you're almost certainly going to need some extensions just handle basic compiling and debug functionality. And some of them are pretty bad! My worst experience have been with the Java variants, with high idle CPU utilization across the board, but that's mostly because VSCode is the 'officially supported' tool for FIRST FRC so I see it on a lot of different non-optimized hardware. I don't do much webdev, but the few times I've run into ESLint, even with a minimal ruleset and properly configured (why is apply-rules-on-typing even an option?!) it's been pretty painful.
It's easier for straight cis guys (or even people like myself who are bi), but I think you overestimate how easy it is to walk into a relationship, depending on social class and work/life balance. This is an older poll, but you still end up with sizable percentages of unmarried adults having never had a date, and a much bigger group struggling to try to get a relationship; it's only gotten worse since.
Straight men can ask out anyone... kinda, and there's pretty strict social norms against doing so anywhere near work and several different classes of enthusiast hobbies. People try to set up straight men with friends and coworkers... if you're already the sort of person who has. You can hook up with random strangers... if you're in the tiny percentage of straight guys that can get a tindr date. There's a lot of ways for straight guys to set themselves apart to women... in the negative sense as easily as the positive: (het, cis) women are far more likely to get the ick for single 'red flags' that can end up being. Straight guys don't have anywhere near the expectations of attractiveness... but they're also dancing a very narrow line between coming across as too aggressive or not forward enough.
((and... straight guys are picky in a different way. The expectations are lower, but anything under them is far more strict limitation, in extreme cases to the point where even a guy that wanted to muscle through it in the interest of an orgasm or a relationship would find themselves 'pushing rope'.))
If you're able to make the first move, a lot of those problems disappear, but in turn a lot of the ways (straight, cis) men were allowed to make the first move have disappeared too. Of my social environments, there's maybe one in which asking someone out on a date would be accepted (and, uh, coincidentally this is also the gayest one, thanks FFXIV), and maybe three where it's not explicitly ban-worthy. I can't speak on straight guys getting set up by friends or family from personal experience, given the bi bit, but from what I've seen second-hand there's a lot of people where that either doesn't happen, or it only happens in situations that have developed the various taboos.
Some of that's downstream of selection effects as I've aged and been in a relationship for a while, but it's very different from the gay world or from what I can see of most of the trans-friendly dating world. A number of gay writers are pretty strong advocates of that model replacing the classical one for hets, but I'm not sure it's working out great for the gays: I have a hell of a time when quite a lot of my options are split between bars or dances, down2succ-level 'casual', or online stuff that's never going to graduate beyond RP and hard to even keep time synced. Where these options are unpleasant in a gay context, they seem unsolvable in a het one.
((And the dodges are so common that Scott Alexander had a post on how "you can tell why from like a 5 min conversation" explanations radicalize a lot of people who are very far from the central example of what I'm hoping are your actual focus, over a decade ago.))
Again, I'm not saying that het (cis) guys have it worse or even anywhere near as rough as you do, but I think you're running into a version of the lemon market problem in things like comp sci hiring; it's really easy for the absolute worst to get vastly over-represented, while a lot of those who are either slightly under-par or who are not as assertive won't show up much on your radar.
That's pretty fair, if not a little lenient.
Anyone have particularly strong feelings about best (or worst) UI libraries? I spent a good part of the weekend trying to take a more serious attempt at familiarizing myself with Avalonia, but I'll admit user interface work is always something I've dabbled with rather than gotten a great understanding of, and at the dabbler's level a lot of great or terrible code gets completely buried by the strength (Visual Studio) or weakness (oh boy, QT!) of IDE-focused tooling, or the difficulty of entry (ia ia OpenGL fhtagn).
Yeah, the ending feels a lot like Alan Moore's Promethea (or, tbf, a lot of Douglas Adam's works, like the Dirk Gently books). There's an absolute ton of pins that were lined up, and then the bowling ball never really came, so they fell over anyway. Which is praising with faint damns when it all still comes together! But feels like something that could have been improved in the editing pass since initial release.
Anything I posted that was anti-MAGA was highly contentious or net-downvoted, with poorly thought out responses by others on the level of "have you ever considered that maybe you're too retarded to understand Trump's brilliant 4D chess move?????" getting broadly upvoted.
It's a good thing there's no other possible distinguishing characteristics, here.
Ah, thanks. This event happened in Minnesota, and the victims were Minnesota State Senators. Not sure how I goofed that up after linking to the Minnesota senate.
Two deaths. Other two victims are currently expected to recover.
One noteworthy bit’s that this is a little bit more sophisticated than the normal hradzka garbage person emotional spasm, not just in the police maskerade, but also hitting two separate politicians so quickly. Police are claiming he had a list with a number of other politicians included. This is pretty far from what I (or, presumably FCfromSSC) would think about, but it doesn’t take much more sophistication before it breaks the normal field tilt toward defense.
Another is that Washington’s ED: Minnesota's /ED state Senate is very close. They’re out of session and it will be a while til the next session, but change votes by a bullet is Very Bad to have as common knowledge.
Some reporting is claiming the shooter has been caught and identified as someone with ties to the Dem political sphere (Walz, morbidly). I’d like to see confirmation that a) that’s the guy and b) it’s not some schmuck with too common a name before doing any deeper analysis publicly, though. EDIT: Confirmed “no kings” rally fliers in vehicle, dunno if motivation or target.
Australia depends very heavily on bulk road transportation to very long distance deliveries, while not having a surfeit of truckers or the interstate infrastructure present in the US. Their solution is “road trains”, consisting of a semi truck, but instead of having one trailer, usually having three to five.
This on its own is just goofy-looking. But road trains also have additional speed limits often slower than normal vehicles (tbf, a good idea), and a lot of the roads they travel have two lanes, one traveling each direction. That would still be fine.
It is culturally normal to pass in those circumstances, so long as not in a no-passing zone. Even when the roads are pretty sandy on the edges. So you have a delta of 5-10kph, a set of trailers that can be 50m long, and you’re going to be potentially playing chicken with incoming traffic for over a minute while the trailers beside you are jerking around.
((And then you also have to worry about the truck driver spotting a kangaroo or a cow on the road in front of him.))
I have no objection to other people using automatic headlights; the mechanism is pretty fail safe. Don’t like them for my own use, but that’s a taste thing.
- Yes.
- Yes.
- Not in the US, in good weather, at daytime. Expect 10-15% over to be acceptable. Rain, snow, or true nighttime off an interstate, speed limits are more strict to their posted number. Other countries can be more aggressive; Australia going 1 kph over too often can cost you your license (though in turn, their norms for road trains are near-suicidal by US standards).
- On the interstate and state roads, yes. Residential roads, I'd consider it rude to get into the left lane for a left turn more than a couple miles ahead of time, but it'd still not be a norm violation and in heavier traffic might be a good idea.
- At lower speeds, it's just impolite. Higher speeds (50+ mph), I'd consider it a norm violation unless they've been really stupid (eg matching speed, ignoring or not seeing turn signal for several hundred meters).
- No.
- a. How long after sunrise or before complete sunset do you need to turn on headlights, and what amount of rain should you? b. What sort of load, if any, in an open truck bed, before you need at least one ratchet strap?
With AI image generation, there are so many levels of randomness and frustrated choice that it's hard to imagine how a user could work for years to achieve progressively greater mastery. Don't most commercial models actively work to disrupt direct user control, e.g. by adding a system prompt you can't see and running even the words of your prompt through intermediate hidden LLM revisions before they even get to the image generator?
Commercial models are usually pretty limited in your control, but local models can be surprisingly deep in terms of technical skill.
There aren't many people working in the space yet, but there's a lot you can do. Inpainting allows controlled redrawing of selected areas, LoRAs (and, previously, Dreambooth) can be used to encode characters or things or styles or perspectives, Image Segmentation can control layout, ControlNet can be used to manipulate pose or composition, so on. Currently, first-frame-last-frame-packing video generation are pretty focused on something very akin to putting together a 'storyboard', and the most plausibly consistent that storyboard is drastically changes how consistent the output image can be. Local AIgen workflows can look very different from talking to a midjourney bot.
Some of these technical skills even have a little overlap: knowing things like the names of different paint or painting techniques, or how camera lenses work, or what poses people can actually do, or why composition matters, feed back into even prompting and heavily feeds into these more technical uses.
The big difference is that (with the arguable exception of storyboarding) these are technical skills; they'll show you how well you achieve what you're trying to do, without necessarily changing whether what you want to do looks good. Conventional artists always had a little bit of that -- drawing a circle or line to improve hand coordination doesn't inherently teach where to use those primitives -- but AIgen does not really have a good way to develop the skill of taste beyond personal preference.
Technically, my first car I owned was a "fancy German car", and even a Mercedes Benz... that was older than I was when I bought it, less than a month's wages as a part-time dishwasher, and about as unreliable as that combination sounds. Probably more a fault on the previous owner than the German Engineering, but even after a full fuel line purge and a new fuel filter, had to clean out the carburetor on a biweekly basis.
Since then it's been the typical Camry-or-nearest-neighbor that I'll buy heavily used, and then drive until the engine grenades itself (thank you Saturn timing chains) or the next oil change isn't economical.
I'm not a car person. It's nice to have something where the muffler isn't falling off, and I don't mind doing the elbow work for maintenance, but if the car's in decent shape I'll take a salvage title Hyundai or a Lesbian-Brand Hatchback as happily as a Tesla or a Big Fuckoff Truck.
I'm pretty explicitly spelling out why the alternative wouldn't be judged much better, given the background and details available.
More options
Context Copy link