You believe that cis is a slur because that’s how you use the word trans.
These people are so fragile. If you dare remind them that they’re cisgender, that they’re straight, that they’re white, that they’re able-bodied, they take it personally because to them, they’re just normal.
All of the sudden, they have to think about their place in society and it absolutely terrifies them. They are like rich people when you tell them that they’re rich. They will do this whole fucking song and dance to try and tell you about how they are not that rich and how the government taxes them and everything and how they’re just like you and so on.
They are not white, they are not cis, they are not straight, they are not able-bodied, no, they are just normal. It’s everyone else that is different. It’s them who are black, who are gay, who are trans, who are disabled. They’re different.
But my guy, you are not. You are as much a part of the society as I am. And you’re getting just a small taste of what it’s like to be a minority in said society. Someone reminded you of what you are for just a second. Now, imagine being constantly brought back to what you are and not who you are. What that would be like.
People like Elon Musk take offense to being called straight, white, cis or able-bodied because everything else is inferior to them.
On a side note: Someone should remind him of what the Nazis did to disabled people. Because the dude is clearly getting cozy with a lot of them, but I don’t think being this level of clinically stupid is going to get him far in the Fourth Reich. Besides, those South African origins… erh, that may get him in trouble. And having a trans daughter? Woof, doesn’t sound like “good genes” to me. Elon, you may want to pick better friends.
Ok, I’m going to be completely honest with you. I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or not.
Are you telling me that I made a shit comment? If so, please do say so because I’m gonna be honest: I am not sure about this comment and I’ve been thinking about deleting it ever since I posted it. I rewrote it like five or six times before until I finally got fed up with it and said “fuck it” and posted it. :|
EDIT:
So, according to all of you, I worry too much. Thanks a lot for the support, and I’m glad you liked my comment. ❤️
Because obviously all compliments are actually just insults in disguise! /s
I put /s, but like, that’s often my first assumption. IME, often compliments have been mostly been intentionally a back-handed insult, are putting themselves down in the process, or they’re trying to give a genuine compliment but its about something I dislike about myself and therefore feels insulting despite the intentions.
They are being genuine. It is a terrific analysis. You are exactly right; in their minds, they are “normal”, and anyone implying any sort of equal status between them and the “abnormals” pisses them off.
Plume - I was being totally serious. I really think your comment hit home for me and I appreciate how you framed your points.
Also - please don’t let internet comments from strangers linger rent free in your head. Too much awesomeness out in the world to let randoms’ comments bring you down.
they take it personally because to them, they’re just normal.
Maybe they (including myself) might take it personally because to them you ARE normal. Regardless of your gender, skin colour or sexual orientation.
So, if I’m treating everyone the same, why is it wrong to ask for other people to do it as well? For example, if I’m trying to talk about a certain topic and your opinion is discarded simply because “you’re cis” then yeah, I have every right to be offended. Just because I’m white and a man it doesn’t mean that I’m necessarily part of the problem.
And no, I wouldn’t presume to know how if feels to be part of a minority that has to face constant violence and discrimination but that’s precisely why I want to have the conversation, I want to better understand what other people are going through. Although, that doesn’t mean that I will (or should) agree with everything the other person says. Being part of a minority doesn’t magically make you right about everything. Just like I might be biased due to my personal context, you can be biased because of yours.
I’m afraid you are putting a lot of words into my mouth and making lots of assomptions about what I’m saying here. I don’t really know how to answer to this because, well, you’re debating against things I didn’t say.
I’m calling you cis, because it’s simply a descriptive term. You are white, you are a man, you are cisgender. That’s not a problem. I’m white, I’m a woman, I’m transgender. That’s not a problem. These, on their own, are simply descriptors. No one here is saying that you’re a problem. I’m talking about people who specifically take offense to these terms, like Musk here does, like, if you tell this man that he is “cis”, he will genuienly get upset.
You misunderstood my point. Context is important and, in this case, the context is using these terms in a platform for discussion (which are usually not very friendly). In my comment, I was thinking of why calling someone “cis” or “trans” or any other thing in a conversation can often be to insult or discredit the other person and why that’s wrong.
not understanding your point is the point. you are not human. you are the evil majority who can’t ever experience bad things… and if you do… you deserve it.
the irony of so many oppressed people is that they dont’ want freedom from oppression, they want to oppress. they want revenge not harmony.
and no better way to tell it when you express yourself politely and they ATTACK you for doing so and are unable to admit that trans folks can also be oppressors of each other and other people. oppression doesn’t make you a saint.
By “post” do you mean the comment I replied to or the actual OP? Because I believe that the intent behind classifying “cis” as an insult is more aligned with my interpretation.
If using the word “cisgender” is a ban-worthy offense, it’s not being considered “a word that can sometimes be insulting”, it’s being considered “a word that is inherently harmful to use in almost any situation”
I don’t think that terms that can get you banned would do so in any context. You’d have to use it and then someone else would have to report you. Might be wrong though.
I have never been excluded from truth seeking conversations because I am cis. Everyone likes an ally. Some people actually like them a little too much in my experience.
If you are in a queer safe space you should treat it like you are at your in-laws house. You don’t need to be expressing every diverging opinion or challenging every cultural assumption. In my experience, if you are being met with hostility, it’s because you are projecting it.
I have never been excluded from truth seeking conversations because I am cis.
Congrats. Unfortunately, it has not been my experience.
if you are being met with hostility, it’s because you are projecting it.
I honestly don’t think I am but it is something that I could ask if it happens again.
In my past experiences where my questions or disagreements, etc have been met with hostility, the reason seems to be that if I don’t 100% agree with what the other person is saying, it’s simply because I’m a straight white man and don’t know any better. Which, as you may guess, doesn’t lead to a very productive discussion.
that’s because of purists and nutjobs any disagreement whatsoever is hostile to them. the notion of civil disagreement, or just polite disagreement is met with violence, because tehy are passive aggressive nut jobs. they don’t want you to be an ally, they dont’ want to work with you to improve things, they want to you submit to their crazy.
just like if you go into your in laws, they ask you for a cup of tea, and you know they serve shitty tea, so you decline it politely, and they go ‘oh so what is our tea not good enough for you?’
i keep trying to be on the side of these people, but they keep telling me i’m a shit person because of my skin color, my gentials, my education, etc. and ironically… most of these people are WAY more privileged than will ever be. I’m so sick of trans/feminist peopel telling me off that i’m a POS who got all the advantages in life… while they often got free-rides on the life train due to parental wealth and exploiting other people where as i had to struggle to get into college and pay off my debts and didn’t get a tsate of this so called of ‘privileged’ until iwas well into my 30s. all the while being constantly harassed for not being a ‘real man’ and also ‘being a man’. all i ever wanted was to be left alone to do my own thing… but no. the second i want ot empathize about being beating for my non-gender conformity, i’m told to STFU and that I’m ‘stealing’ or whatever, because apparently my expereince of my gendered life and gender violence doesn’t exist or is all lies and falsehoods because i’m not trans, or a woman. and oh by the way, if it did really happen… i clearly deserved it because of the debt i own gender minorities or something.
like… ok i won’t be on your side anymore then. i’ll just leave you to your own bitterness and focus on folks who treat me well who aren’t pathologically violent against anyone who is different than them and who take offense at every perceived slight.
Because they are normal. If most of the species is the same in these aspects, it’s normal. But you know, we can also simply switch what word we use, and instead of normal use…common or average. So, they are average. :p
Google Search was so good when it came out. Complete polar opposite to the cluttered and bloated Yahoo Search. Haven't really using it for years now because the search results became worse and worse, especially when that rounded edge theme came along.
It is useless in searching for new info, I mostly use it for searching for things I already know/seen, but don’t want to bother with URLs or bookmarks.
Even then, I have to scroll to the middle of the page, to get to the actual results below all the sponsored crap.
No clutter, meant faster loading time, and that was important at the time. Nowadays, you can just type the search query to the address bar, but that wasn’t available back then. Initially, you didn’t even have one of those extra toolbars with a little search box, so loading the search page was the only way. If you do like 50 searches a day, those seconds spent on waiting the page to load really begin to add up.
Shitty Executive: “Oh shit, our terrible idea turned out to be wildly unpopular and we’re getting massive negative feedback! Quick, play the death threats card to make us look like the victim!”
Perhaps they could pay a small fee to not receive them.
Or purchase the Happy Customer Times Season Pass, where for 12 months they only receive feedback telling them how awesome they’re doing. Only $39.99 per employee!
*fees are liable to change at any time without notice, new prices may be applied retroactively
20 cents for every death threat not sent? Sure! Whos counting? Dont worry, our propiertary system counts every unsent message, you only need to pay up ^(works every previously unsent message, but only if you got more than 200 000 the past year, we got you)
Bit seriously, why do some people always so eager to send death threats? It almost never achieves anything, gets you on the moral low ground and doesn’t even get to the right persons the first place.
I’m sure there’s a PR playbook somewhere with a flowchart that says, did you screw up really badly and you look like the villain? - yes - There’s public outrage? - yes - say there’s death threats
I’m all for pirating, but tbh music streaming apps are a service that is still in the “worth it” range. Not where Spotify is going, but, maintaining a library of high quality music with all the assets, and serving it to all your devices over the Internet is not a small feat to do securely.
I’ll probably switch to tidal for now while I start building up my library to include stuff beyond what I like…
You should check out Plexamp while you bridge the gap. It has tidal support built in, and you can self-host your own collection as you build it up. Then when you’re done with tidal, you don’t have to learn or download a new app.
I do, but the music streaming on jellyfin is nowhere near as nice as plexamp.
Just syncing all of your files locally is far superior to either unless your library is like >250GB.
Streaming is a different use case than playing your own music which is essentially what plexamp and jellyamp are doing with extra steps. There are much better local music players than either option.
Plex is also on the route of enshittitfication. Jellyfin is the better recommendation imo. A variety of apps that can connect to it too, for either streaming or music.
This is the biggest problem for me. I have thousands of movies and 10s of thousands of TV episodes, but my audio library is still all the same stuff I downloaded from Napster, Limewire, Kazaa 20+ years ago. It’s too hard to find a good selection these days outside of a few private trackers. I’m in several private trackers but I’m not going to sit in a queue for 2 days waiting for an interview time and jump through hoops to join something like RED or PTP tier tracker.
Not to mention I mostly listen to podcasts these days and when I do listen to music, I try to find new stuff that I’ve never heard of rather than searching for a known artist. This would be way too convoluted to do on my own with some self-hosted solution.
I’ve been using deemix, and for the most part it’s been pretty seamless. Stuff direct downloads instantly, but it’s all in 128kbps now unfortunately. Then I have lidarr monitor everything for a lossless version.
Are you saying Deemix only downloads at 128kbps? If so, I’ve been using it as well and download in FLAC. Also, I pay for the family plan which is $15.99/month.
Edit: Ah, I’m guessing you’re not on a paid Deezer plan.
Just some perspective: I’ve been self-hosting stuff for 7y now, started with plex on a nas. I have tried a couple times to get the *arr stack working, one at a time and fuck me it’s complex and the risk of fucking up the config and data crossing the clearnet without a VPN, noooope fuck right off with that. That risk/reward just is too skewed for me.
Since all music services I've tried so far are laughably shit at that anyway, Last.fm is your friend. Besides, Plexamp tries to get you into a Tidal subscription and suggests things from there, so you'll get stuff here nad there.
As someone else said: it doesn’t replace streaming even a little. Pirating is replacing buying music directly. Streaming facilitates finding new music and trying it out. Being able to listen to anything at any time. You simply can’t do that with downloads; no one can download everything. Piracy in this case really just works for people still listening to their highschool favs and not people looking for new stuff all the time.
It replaces paying for Spotify because its possible to download Spotify premium. Best of both worlds. Use Spotify or YouTube to find stuff, send it to a seedbox, load it later at home.
Biggest downside is most phones don’t have SD card slots anymore.
I used to download exclusively when I was younger, but as I get older I’m trying out new genres from different cultures than my own and I’d miss out on it all without a streaming service.
Dear lord no. You can still use Spotify, YTM, and a host of other services to discover new music. The argument was valid back in the days of the excellent Google Play Music, but the algorithm has gone to shit since. There are also tons of sources of user curated playlists you can use to fund new music.
I am 51 and if I let algorithms pick my music I would never discover most of what I find and constantly be fed thirty year old music. Just this past month I discovered mehro, King Woman, Sugar High and Parra for Cuva.
Do they work like ReVanced Youtube and just remove ads/restrictions while keeping account properties? Or do they work like NewPipe and block all the algorithm stuff, use their own accounts/playlists?
I use a cracked Spotify client but if I do legitimately pay, it will be for Tidal. I want that sweet sweet lossless audio people have been talking about.
Its good to see congress focusing on the real issues finally. When I pay taxes, this is what I’m looking for. Hopefully they will get around to legalizing kicking homeless people and children in the face soon as this is another one of my priorities.
As a disabled person I find I am not intentionally tripped anywhere near enough. I beseech Congress to act now before I become complacent in my verticality.
The argument the idiots use is “We want to see government theft!” instead of just having a line item at the end of your receipt showing tax collected and the breakdown. It’s not like we don’t have toiletpaper roll length receipts already.
The kicker is we already do the “price at point of sale including taxes” thing at gas stations. If it’s $3.09 or whatever per gallon, that’s including state and federal sales tax.
We already see the line item thing on most receipts anyway. We basically do everything except roll the sales tax into the sticker price.
that would very much wreak havoc with caching since you basically can’t cache pricing including sales tax as it depends on your very specific location.
of course, for things like event tickets, it’s the venue’s location that matters for tax, so it works out to be a non-issue.
Fair, I admittedly don’t know how one would implement it, but the sales tax data is being used by their clients for something.
Looking into it further, some states, according to Shopify’s FAQ on the topic, have different rules with regards to destination-sourced vs origin-sourced sales. 🤷♂️
Maybe you could do more localized caching. Localities with different sales tax are finite and few. Cache pages based on those localities and then serve pages based on the IP of the client. It’s not ideal or as optimal, but it’s not that unreasonable in my mind. If it became the norm we’d build the infrastructure to sustain it.
Companies have no problem doing it to comply with EU regulations which require tax to be included, so I see no technical reason why they couldnt figure it out for the US.
It’s an imperfect solution. VPNs are an issue - and even if you don’t use a VPN, the API only knows the location of the ISP’s servers - which can be in a different state.
My point was that, the law should leave tax inclusion in pricing as optional. There is no way to implement automatic detection cleanly, other than prompting the user to confirm their location, which is a huge annoyance - so the ‘tax inclusion’ rule would not make things better or more convenient.
I imagine this policy will quietly be pulled with a statement about how due to “not expecting how unpopular the decision was”
As soon as they get a subpoena from… every AAA developer.
This would include Warner bros, as they own a video game Studio, in fact I believe Mortal Kombat 1 uses unity, and it’s supposed to be what gets their Christmas bonus this year. They would be fools to not already have their people on the case.
Instead of working to create a cost effective, quick method for users to buy (AND OWN, NOT LICENSE) digital movies, the MPAA is instead going to try and censor the internet. Brilliant move, idiots.
I can own an ebook or an MP3, while some services license them many of them actually just sell you the media outright. Why are movies any different?
Otherwise, I agree, if we're (for some legitimate reason) forced into licensing instead of purchasing, the license needs to be perpetual and irrevocable.
You don’t own an ebook or an MP3 either. You have a license. You still legally aren’t permitted to do whatever you want with it. (And because virtually anything you do on a computer requires copying, there is no discrete “file” for you to own like you do physical media.)
DRM is a tool that companies use to screw customers out of controlling their own libraries, but content being DRM-free doesn’t change anything about what you legally can or can’t do with it, and doesn’t turn your license into any kind of legal ownership.
That's not accurate. Go buy an MP3 from Bandcamp, you own the mp3 (it's a merchandise transaction, not a license, it's very explicit in the terms of service) -- you don't own a license to the mp3, you own the actual mp3 (same as you would own a CD). The same is true of several other mp3 stores and a handful of ebook providers, as well as when you buy ebooks directly from the author (quick example: https://melissafmiller.com/how-and-why-to-buy-ebooks-direct-from-me-and-other-authors/).
Owning the CD doesn't allow you to make derivative works as owning the CD doesn't make you the copyright holder, just like owning the mp3 doesn't actually mean you're the copyright holder, and I'm not making any argument otherwise (referring to your "legally permitted to do whatever you want" comment) -- but you absolutely can buy mp3s and ebooks and not license them.
DRM is an entirely separate issue and not relevant here as none of what I'm referring to relates to non-DRM protected licensed content.
Yes, it is. It is fundamentally not possible to own a specific copy of a file. There is no legal basis for it. It is literally always, unconditionally, a license in every possible scenario where you don’t gain actual copyright assignment. It cannot possibly be anything else.
It doesn’t matter what their page says or how they present it. They can grant you unlimited rights to copy for personal use, but literally every time you move a file to a new drive or device is a completely distinct new file. It is not the same entity.
I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but you saying it over and over and offering no proof or corroborating evidence for your claims isn't furthering the discussion. I've provided two examples of cases where purchasing a file constitutes ownership and not a license, one where purchasing an MP3 constitutes full ownership of the MP3 via the terms of service, and one where purchasing an eBook constitutes full ownership of the ebook. According to you this is impossible, but I've provided two clear examples where it is, in fact, possible.
I am interested in hearing why you believe what you believe and what evidence you can present that supports your beliefs, but if all you can do is restate that you say it's x/y/z without any legal standing it and without anything that explains how the terms of service I provided are incorrect or unenforcable (e.g., can you provide me any previous situation in case law where terms of service expressly disclose an mp3 or ebook purchase as a merchandise transaction, but then treat as a revocable license?), I'm not sure where we can go from here. I appreciate your willingness to have the discussion but I'm not here to take someone's word without any corroborating evidence.
I think that a lot of people think what you think, and I think a lot of people think that because the majority of places online only allow purchases as licenses, but just because 85% or 90% of places you go online sell you a license to an mp3 or an ebook doesn't mean that other places don't exist where you can buy the mp3 or ebook outright. Further, I've done a lot of digging and I cannot find any case law that supports your claim that it's not possible to "own" a file. Authors own manuscripts they write on their computer and can seek civil or criminal penalties when those files are stolen, musicians own the raw files they make of their music and can do the same, etc.
No, you posted links claiming to do something impossible.
There is no legal concept of ownership of a file. It does not exist. There is no framework that can be interpreted to enable someone to own a specific copy of a file, which again, disappears every time you move it. You own the intellectual property contained in a file, or you don’t.
The framework that does exist is a license to a file (not a specific copy. Specific copies don’t mean anything). That license can be insanely permissive. It can grant you anything from permission to change, alter, and redistribute without any permission or attribution, to “you can view this once on this specific device”, and pretty much anything in between. But it’s always a license. It’s not capable of being anything else.
Physical media is ownership of that actual physical item. The law has added an implied license granted by possession of said item that grants additional rights to back up the contents, on a very limited basis, but the only thing with ownership involved is the actual physical media.
Case precedent and law proves you incorrect. Fixed copies of digital assets have repeatedly been proven to be capable of being "owned". There is no requirement that an item be a physical, tangible good in order to be owned. I don't know where you're getting your information (because you refuse to cite it), but it's incorrect.
Read the fine print on your DVD’s/CD’s and you’ll see he’s right. The MPAA and record labels 1000% assume that everything you “buy” is a limited license. We can argue all day about what it functionally means - legally or otherwise - but that’s just the truth man.
It’s because it’s a limited license delivered in a physical format.
U.S. Copyright law requires that all videos displayed outside of the home, or at any place where people are gathered who are not family members, such as in a school, library, auditorium, classroom or meeting room must have public performance rights. Public performance rights are a special license that is either purchased with a video or separately from the video to allow the video to be shown outside of personal home use. This statute applies to all videos currently under copyright. This includes videos you have purchased, borrowed from the library, or rented from a video store or services like Netflix.
You realize that that paper is literally calling the entire premise you’re arguing for as “unrecognized by law” and is an argument that the law needs to change, right? It doesn’t even sort of support you on the current status. It’s a giant call to action to change the law.
What you own is a license. I’m literally all cases. There is legally nothing in between copyright assignment and a license in any scenario. It does not exist, and is not capable of existing without completely rewritten copyright law.
The MPAA and record labels 1000% assume that everything you “buy” is a limited license. We can argue all day about what it functionally means - legally or otherwise
But if you try to resell the “single copy” of digital content you supposedly own from any of the platforms with that marketing lie, every one of them will aggressively take action. And they’ll win every time.
Because you don’t and can’t own a copy of a file and don’t have the inherent rights ownership provides.
Downvotes for being correct. Everything is licensed. Only the copyright owner holds anything other than a license. There is no legal framework for it working otherwise.
It’s wild how many people are buying into “it’s not a license” marketing fluff, when actually acknowledging it as the license it necessarily has to be and explicitly granting rights would be way more in the consumer’s interest.
The fact that they’re DRM free is good. But a vague marketing statement that “you own it” without actually clearly granting rights in a license is not good. (There might be license terms somewhere on the sites he’s referring to; I didn’t check because it isn’t actually relevant to anything.)
If you owned it, you would have the legal right to use it however you like. For example, using it on your YouTube video. But you don’t, and Bandcamp is clear about that:
Bandcamp licenses it from the artist for the purpose of redistribution, but that’s it. They don’t have a license to transfer any other right than private use.
You license everything. Physical media might make it easier to keep that license perpetually, but it’s still licensed.
You're confusing ownership of media with ownership of copyright. I'm not suggesting that I can buy an mp3 and reshare it (or the same for an ebook), that's a violation of copyright. I've never suggested that buying them lets me remove DRM, re-share, etc. It's a strawman argument that you and conciselyverbose seem very attached to, but not an argument I'm making.
Ownership is not strictly limited to physical items, and I'm very curious why people think it is. There's significant outstanding case law precedent that proves that ownership can apply to digital files as well.
Subscribe to netflix, put up flyers that you are streaming all of Ozark all week for free at your house. Then tell Netflix that you’re doing it. Let me know what happens.
Try it with a blu-ray and alert the copyright holder. Try it with a CD of your favorite album and alert the record company. Again: free, at your home, your physical or digital media you “own.” See what happens.
I never said it was unethical. I said it violates the license,which it does.
Do I think it’s bullshit? Absolutely. Do not paint me as anti-consumer, anti-ownership, or even anti-piracy. I’m saying what reality is.
We don’t own shit when it comes to music and movies and that’s a serious problem. Arguing with me doesn’t change that. I am saying we need to fix this.
Stocks are digital these days. Cryptocurrency is digital. So you’re basically saying those should be licensed to people, not owned.
Ownership has nothing to do with the tangibility of the thing in the age of the Internet. And to say otherwise is missing the point of ownership in the first place.
If I outright buy a movie, whether digital or not, I should own it – be able to download it, play it whenever I want, in perpetuity. If I subscribe to a service such as Disney+, then I fully know that I am purchasing a license to view their content.
The logistics of providing such ownership is the cost of doing business, just like it is for Blu-ray. I would argue that ownership should be even easier, logistically, for digital goods because there is no actual manufacturing effort involved (aside from initial production of, say, a movie).
The only reason companies want to license digital goods, instead of providing ownership to those who buy it, is greed (edit: and control).
You chose funny examples because a lot of people basically own a “license“ of those things and don’t even know it. Especially if they’re using a crypto exchange. They don’t own shit
If you buy on an exchange and don’t transfer to your wallet no you do not own it. Until it’s in your wallet, it’s theirs. They will transfer it to you when you call for it. THEN it’s yours.
DVDs are almost good, they still have encryption but its so shit you can just brute force it and it cripples. And somehow that’s legal, but decss or whatever it was wasnt. Gotta love IP
If I have the files on my own hard drive with no DRM or control on when or how I can play the game, how can you say I don’t own it? What would be the difference between “licensing” and “owning”?
I can see where you’re coming from - if I sell or give away my copy of the game (like literally I delete my copy and send another copy to someone else), I suppose that isn’t really seen like that from a law perspective? I guess because there’s almost no way to verify that I deleted my copy. I still feel like we should be able to own stuff like that.
I don’t think even possessing a physical CD or DVD counts as “owning” per our legal system. No? Even that is considered leasing the right to play the thing at will, but you still don’t own anything.
And they never ever ever will be. Its a condition of capitalism; give a man a fish, you’ve just fucked yourself out of one days fish sales. teach a man to fish and youve blown a customer for life, irrevocably shrinking your market share.
These are the people that sued a kid who broke DVD “drm” so he could play LEGAL movies he OWNED on a Linux machine since there was still licensing issues (i think that’s the reason?) and no player. An be he didn’t even live in the US.
They’re spoiled from selling you the same movies over and over again whenever a new medium becomes normalized, despite all your previous licenses. Then they complain when your media breaks or you want to share with your best friend.
I’m a dad with a full time job and 2 toddlers. If I wanted to dip my toes into game development for the first time and I wanted to use Godot, what kind of project should I do first? Something that’s great for starting out and learning the absolute basics.
As typical as it is for the current indie game dev climate, making a ‘Vampire Survivors’ type game is probably a really good starting point for game development. 2D games are somewhat easier to make than 3D ones, so a 2D roguelike could be fun (but get’s very complex very quickly) or a old-school Zelda styled game would also be pretty cool in my opinion while remaining fairly simple.
Here’s are a couple other avenues to learn off the top of my head:
Follow along with one or two of the large amount of tutorials they have for the engine and adding new features and gameplay mechanics to them when you feel like it.
Think of a cool but simple idea and try to execute it yourself through trial and error, referencing the online docs and asking questions to the Godot game dev community.
It can be super daunting as there is a lot to learn. Try to learn by working on something that you yourself think is fun and that’ll keep you more motivated :)
What @dack said for your first game that is a great resource. If you wanted an overview of how the godot engine works later you can start from the Intro
Not everything he does is right and some things he doesn’t even understand that well, but it gives you a good idea into everything you’ll need and you can then quickly learn how to expand from that.
Shoutout to Bevy as well. It’s not as user friendly or polished as Godot but it’s a lot more powerful. If you’re a talented game dev I’m sure you could do some amazing things with Bevy.
Bevy is a very different kind of beast. It’s basically “here’s the ECS, have fun!” while it rides into the sunset.
My next project will use bevy, but mostly because its API is so ridiculously small that I can map it entirely into my own engine (which then exposes the ECS through my own API). That would be a lifetime’s task with Unity (don’t know enough about Godot to say definitely, but I bet it’s the same, since it has the same architecture).
To be fair it does have a huge plugin ecosystem that handles most of the common use cases, so it’s a bit more than just an ECS, but the docs have some pretty big gaps in them so you could be excused for thinking it’s more bare bones than it is.
The lime that concrete is made of is alkaline, so if you’re very careful a little bit may simply neutralise the acid. Neutralised… I think it’s just chalk? Don’t do this though, it wouldn’t take much to mess it up and do serious damage to your insides. Plus idk if it’s actually just chalk. Also if you wash your hands with vinegar after a day working with cement it gets rid of the horrible dried out feeling and feels nice & creamy, because it neutralises the base.
This is funny because when I was a plumber after particularly dirty days I used to wash my hands with cement and I used to think that made my hands feel smooth
oh jesus, GOOD beer.
how anyone can drink sub-par beer is fucking beyond me. Drinking that stuff is just self-disrespect. I mean, I get it, but, just, no.
I can confidently say as a recovering alcoholic that I would have bought neither. I would gave gone with a handle of the cheapest vodka in the store and a pouch of drum, bugler or Samson. And that would have been my 3 meals for the day.
we’re called The Three Leonards. We do covers of pop songs in a pastiche of mid-1980’s Leonard Cohen, and yes it’s pretty different than music other people make today. Folks seem to like our covers of Toxic and Rusted From The Rain quite a bit.
They made ad accounts unable to be blocked a year or so ago so downvote preventing doesn’t seem too wild. It’s why you couldn’t block that Christian account that always posted “He gets you” stuff.
engadget.com
Top