tbf, it’s too specialized. They’re heavy so they can hurt through armor, which makes them slow. Terrible weapon vs an unarmored opponent, who can more easily just get out of the way or stay out of your reach.
A spear is at least good everywhere but indoors.
Like, what is the absolute last medieval weapon you would ever want if you were fighting 3 unarmed guys? All fast, all know what they’re doing. I’d say mace is solidly last.
Now, are they all wearing heavy plate armor like knights? Then mace becomes really, really good, it’ll break your bones through that steel, dent the steel inward so it compresses your body and the joints stop working properly, all sorts of shitty things. And you’re too slow to get out of the way.
I’ve always found them the most scary. If someone has mastered one, able to control and time the weight, opening up opportunities for blows, you’re fucked. A light blow with a blade or spear, you’re taking shallow damage and can scamper back. But with a mace? You’re off-balance now or quite stunned and that’s exactly what leads to the skull being crushed in a second later.
So, sure they’re slower and harder to land, but patiently, just one good hit and it’s game very quickly and violently over. Not to mention, the wielder doesn’t have to worry about their weapon being stuck in the dead guy.
tbf, it’s too specialized. They’re heavy so they can hurt through armor, which makes them slow. Terrible weapon vs an unarmored opponent, who can more easily just get out of the way or stay out of your reach.
There’s just one lesson in mace school: “come at them from behind”.
I’d put a pair of Sai behind the mace against the unarmed guys. Those things are useless, unless you know exactly what you’re doing. A mace is just an improvement on a warhammer, so even untrained, I have a pretty good idea of how to use it. A sledgehammer is similar enough.
Good plate armor was nowhere near as ungainly as many people imagine. A knight wearing a well-made suit would actually retain a surprising amount of agility and speed. The downside was that they obviously had to be custom made and were so expensive that only the wealthiest nobles could afford them.
While true, it doesn’t take much speed reduction to make a mace, or anything else, no longer miss you. Inertia is what it is, and the margins are not always large. The armor can deal with a lucky sword stroke, unless it’s really, really lucky. It can’t deal with a lucky mace stroke, you’re a casualty. Broken arm, leg, skull, something.
Otherwise maces wouldn’t have much of a point, anyway. Tiring to swing, shorter reach, yeah it hurts, but so does a sword if there’s no armor in the way. Takes minimal training, but so does a spear, and spearmen can stand in close order and poke. A maceman can’t do that, you gotta swing that thing. It’s not much of a poker, like say, a roman gladius is.
If there’s no heavy armor on the field, leave your mace at home. If there’s heavy armor, bring the mace. Battering through that shit is what it’s for.
You can bring the mace anyway, just in case, as long as you don’t mind carrying it. One other major benefit is that the things could be dirt cheap because you don’t need good quality metal.
But if you want to hit people, and have a money and time for training, go for an axe. Pretty much all the advantages of a mace, but can cut on top (and usually poke too).
The other part of the equation is not getting killed, and usually the guys in heavy armor are good at killing you. Getting in striking range for a medium range weapon like a mace/axe/sword is damn dangerous, so a slower weapon like a mace or axe that’s additionally bad at defending because of a more distant point of balance means a much increased risk to your life. So if it’s one on one, you should really think twice about trying to getting that lucky strike in.
not sure i agree people tend to wield baseball bats the same just swinging for the fences but a quick jab with the base or top is the most effective way to use them.
Even if you’re armed with the choice weapon, and skilled, 3 knights on foot looking to fuck you up are gonna do so lol. Those guys were brawlers more than anything else
Hits really hard. Probably kinda hard to use. If I picked up a real one I’d probably end up giving myself a concussion somehow.
I guess I don’t know very much about flails… I thought they were more of a cavalry weapon irl, but I’d have to look that up. Unless it’s the old makeshift farm implement version that some peasants probably picked up at different points.
The haft with a long chain and ball on the end is fantasy. However, I fought with one for a couple of years as a combat actor/choreographer and ren-faire reenactor and would say that the flail is a duelist’s weapon only. And in a duel its chief function is to remove your opponent’s shield.
A well placed flail strike will go around the guard of your opponent and potentially break fingers, hand, wrist, or arm.
You can also try to use it to disarm their primary weapon but it’s less reliable in this regard as it becomes a tug of war strength contest.
Use your flail to break their hand and make them drop their shield and then drop the flail and draw your side sword or whatever else you happen to have.
Too slow and clumsy of a weapon to fight against a group or near allies.
Yeah pretty much, which is why the axe was actually used and flails as we know them are fantasy weapons. The flail has the intimidation and cool factor but otherwise I’d rather have an axe.
The flail might have more reach, but the longer the chain the slower the weapon and more skill required to land a blow.
One handed flails were never used in warfare. They were made for decoration. There was a 2 handed flail that couldn’t reach the user but it was still not very effective.
Maces tended to be lighter and shorter than equivalent swords.
Maces aren’t as good against unarmored opponents, because unarmored opponents bleed and get incapacitated from a few well placed cuts. Swords tend to balance their weight closer to the handle to offer precision to make those cuts.
Maces specialize in delivering nearly the entire energy behind a strike. They were balanced to the tip of the weapon for that reason. Which is great against cut resistant armor due to energy transfer. Note that this places maces utility well before invention of plate armor.
If it’s heavy and slow, it’s not a weapon. Slow weapons kill their weilders. Rare armor rendered the user so slow as to let you swing in a game-like “lumberjack dealing with a stubborn log” fashion. There are plenty demonstrations around that show how fast and deadly an armored swordsman is.
The statement about spears indoors is game logic. The variability in spears and swords designs is such that most swords and spears would be equally dogshit indoors, but those that wouldn’t would all work quite ok. In a narrow, defensibly built passageway, thrusting attacks are nearly the only attacks available to combatants. A short spear then can offer a good deal of utility that sword wouldn’t, and vise versa. Short maces are nowhere near being useless there either.
Couple points in there I could argue, but it’s fair enough. Source for maces generally being lighter than equivalent swords? My experience has been very much to the contrary, though I’ve never held an actual historical artifact, only replicas.
Note the years and descriptions on the lighter swords. They are more of an everyday tool for civilians at that point. A regular club competed with those, probably very successfully.
I rather doubt a regular club competed with a fencing sword successfully, in hands of equal skill. That I’m afraid I will argue. It’s a question of speed and weighting. That heavy weighting towards the top you were describing earlier in a mace, and also present in a typical club or baton, has far more effects than merely focusing force over a smaller surface area. You also have the basic physics of moving a lever through an arc, and overcoming the intertia of the end of it, if you desire to change its direction.
My own training is mostly in actually using weapons, not academic understanding of them, and you’re entering my turf. lol
By compete I mean to compete in utility and general use, not in a duel. Fencing sword is of no use when you get whacked at the back of your head. It’s also relatively useless on a battlefield, from which I presume it occupied mostly the same space the clubs did - streets and roads.
I won’t argue on weight distribution influence. Sharp object balanced near the handle doesn’t need much of a swing to render my arms unusable. A mace simply cannot do that, its utility lies elsewhere.
PS: I would love to see a skilled fight using a thrusting sword and a mace. Thrusting swords don’t have a cutting edge, which makes it possible to grab and grapple them aside. I imagine the moment your opponent grabs your sword and swings their club presents quite a pickle.
I feel like it would be fairly easy to leap backwards so long as your back isn’t to a wall. The force of the leap alongside you yanking your sword backward should free it from most grips, I’d think. I’m just spitballing though, I’ve never actually tried to seriously grab any kind of thin blade, much less a fencing sword of some sort. I guess you could torque it in your grip to improve your control, I don’t know how much of an effect this could have. I doubt it’d go much like the (fantastic) finale scenes of Rob Roy though, just because your asking your forearm muscles to combat a pretty hefty amount of momentum via mostly friction, which just isn’t very likely to work imo.
Unless you had an equivalent amount of forward momentum yourself, coming in with a massive lunge to maintain distance against the retreating opponent. That’s pretty all-or-nothing though. If instead of leaping backwards he moves into you, you have no cover (both of your hands are in use at this moment) against a potential fist or elbow to your face from his free arm, with the extra momentum of the two of you approaching each other.
By the way, I never thanked you for the corrections to my understanding, so thank you. This is admittedly not the first time I’ve had to take my spankings from an educated academic, I am a bit of a poster child for replica weapons being frequently inaccurate and thus teaching mistaken impressions. I do try to remember this, but it isn’t always easy. I do have a strong appreciation for accurate understanding of history though, so thank you for taking the time to write up corrections and provide sources.
Oh, I’m not an academic, just an ADHD poster child. Historic weapons keep appearing on my radar for the past few years and I repeatedly find myself spending time on researching what I’ll never practice.
I try to find and share sources for that reason - they allow others to skip incorrect assumptions I made along the way.
Still an educated academic, simply self-taught. If you do your due diligence appropriately, which your fluency with source material seems to demonstrate is so, that’s good enough for me.
I’m reminded of Drachinifel on youtube, originally an engineer by trade, but now a well-regarded expert on naval historiography, specifically from the age of sail to the pre-modern era, with a particular focus on Spanish ships.
Dude just reads a lot, and has research skills, a good memory and a knack for history communication.
We do that for some of the more complex business logic. We wrote libraries, which are used by our tests, and we wrote tests which test the library functions to ensure they provide correct results.
What always worries me is that WE came up with that. It wasn’t some higher up, or business unit, or anything. Only because we cared to do our job correctly. If we didn’t - nobody would. Nobody is watching the testers (in my experience).
Mutation testing is quite cool. Basically it analyzes you code and makes changes that should break something. For example if you have if (foo) { … } it will remove the branch or make the branch run every time. It then runs your tests and sees if anything fails. If the tests don’t fail then either you should add another test, or that code was truly dead and should be removed.
Of course this has lots of “false positives”. For example you may be checking if an allocation succeeded and don’t need to test if every possible allocation in your code fails, you trust that you can write if (!mem) abort() correctly.
If you believe that there was any conversation like this at all, and it isn’t just some production line that places coupons at the same place on every box.
The community is “malicious compliance”. It would only be a perfect fit for here if it were actually malicious compliance and not just a funny coincidence.
Whether real or not, it is a joke about malicious compliance creating this funny placement. It could very well be real malicious compliance. That’s a very fitting place for this meme
Lol that’s like too funny now. Hitting legitimate users with the nagware, so that the only ones having a good experience are the pirates :D Tale as old as the first VHS tape
The equivalence the person is drawing is something like what Denuvo does on PC. Games that ship with Denuvo suffer significant performance issues but when Denuvo is cracked and the game is put on the high seas, they don't come with Denuvo so the pirates end up having a better experience.
running an adblocker or script blocker in your browser is a crucial component of safe and secure internet use. until the sites and ad networks fully vet and guarantee the safety and legitimacy of the ads and scripts they serve, fuck them all.
No it’s not. If an ad break comes up on tv and to avoid them you go for a pee or get some snacks, no sane person would call that piracy. It’s pretty much the same with youtube, I could just leave the room while an ad plays. Adblock just automates the task of not watching the ad.
The ad is served which is what counts and you can not ignore it or not ignore it, doesn’t matter as long as it is served. adblock makes it so the ad is never served in the first place, circumventing the “payment” for the content, as in “piracy”.
Ok the whole idea of ads is a mess. It used to be that showing ads was additional income next to doing your normal stuff. You hosted a website for a blog or sth. and if people liked your blog you could reduce server costs by a few ads. This whole thing got out of hand a century ago when you plan to host a blog(for example) with so many ads on the site so you make a profit from ads. The quality of the blog went so low since it isn’t important that people like rather than click it once. So mass trash production is the result.
Back to Youtube. They provided a service for free to host videos. They did this at a loss for almost ever. They also added a few ads in order to reduce costs, but those ads didn’t turn in profits. They added Youtube Premium in order to make profit. But people didn’t really buy it since it was too expensive (I assume). So now probably there was a big pressure from Google to get YouTube profitable. They increased the ads and the unskippable ones. Slowly they made money, but now the greed has probably taken in. “Force people into Premium by so many ads that the site is unusable without” is probably the current goal to make more money.
Now of course people don’t like to pay for a previously free service, and people don’t like ads: An adblocker it is. Now youtube wants more money! So adblockers must go! This ideology is in line with chrome Manifest v3 so you can’t block ads anymore (like on Android)
Youtube is totally in the right here. It’s their service and they can do what they want, but I am Also allowed to decide what happens in my Browser on my computer! I can decide to disable ads all I want! There is no law forcing me to watch them. I mean what’s the difference between me bocking ads at a technical level or just go out of the room until it is over? None from a advertisors view, but for Youtube they get money even if you don’t look as long it is displayed.
Considering that YouTube is as dominant as it is today because of the well-documented network effect[1], you can consider your use of YouTube instead of a competitor in and of itself a payment because it lets them keep their monopoly on online video distribution. YouTube knows this, which is why they were so lenient in their early years - if they started off being strict, people would’ve left earlier and made YouTube’s future as a monopoly more uncertain because of a demand for competitors.
Maybe instead of justifying their profit-seeking, we should demand more oversight and democratic say over how YouTube as a monopoly operates? Kind of like how in Germany and Slovenia, workers get 50% of the seats on the board of corporations and get to have a say in how a business operates? Alike many other European countries with varying %es of the board seats, like Norway and Sweden where it’s 33%, or Finland where it’s 20%. [2]
Otherwise, don’t be surprised when YouTube starts going after creator profits next. Something they’re using to justify going after adblock users now.
Unfortunately, all it takes is one right wing nut job to liquidate the positions and sell them to corporate interests.
See the decimation of Canada's National Energy Board under Modi and Poilievre's showrunner, former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. The board, by law, has to be half oil industry and half environmentalists. He fired all of the sane people and sold the empty spots to the oil industry.
If one person has control over what people sit on the board, that’s not democratic. I did specify “democratic” above, so I think it’s an important point to hammer in here. We could make a significant part (if not even the whole) of the board be elected worker managers. In an actual democracy, a single person doesn’t have the power to boot people they don’t like out.
Advertising is the practice and techniques employed to bring attention to a product or service. Advertising aims to put a product or service in the spotlight in hopes of drawing it attention from consumers.
It isn’t a form of payment from the consumer. It never was, it never should be.
I have to disagree with you that it’s not a form of payment. How many platforms offer a subscription model to go ad free? Ads are a revenue stream for any given platform. You either pay the platform with your money, or your time watching ads.
If you disagree that you can’t pay for things with your time, then we will have to agree to disagree
There has to be an explicit agreement accompanying the payment. When you pay directly and buy a product or service you have that explicit agreement. With ads you don’t, there’s only implicit statements hidden in terms of service and things like that. In the EU that’s illegal and doesn’t hold any power over the consumer.
Let Google come forth and say “you can only watch this video with Premium” and that would be ok. Mandating ads is not.
The payment for the service is coming from the ad owners. Me choosing not to download parts of a webpage isn't piracy, it's me choosing not to download certain parts of a web page. Nobody has any right to force data I don't want onto my computer except me. Piracy is illegal, adblocking is not (so far).
This isn't like you copied a game and cracked the DRM. An adblocker just strips out the HTML and javascript needed to display an ad. It's not different than if you turned off images in your browser like we used to do back in the day on dialup to make it load faster.
Me choosing not to download parts of a webpage isn't piracy, it's me choosing not to download certain parts of a web page. Nobody has any right to force data I don't want onto my computer except me.
Subsequently, the owner of the website also has the right to not serve you parts of a web page. It's a two-way street mate. This argument that a service provider is obligated to give you everything you want without any conditions simply does not stand up to any real scrutiny.
Subsequently, the owner of the website also has the right to not serve you parts of a web page.
You're absolutely right. I didn't say they don't. But as long as they still do let me access it, I'll keep using an adblocker on their website. Once the spigot gets turned off for good, I'll move elsewhere.
So if I understand correctly, you define the border of piracy as the technicality of websites where the HTML and JS are accessible as opposed to a binary that comes with built-in DRM.
We've had the capability to pick and choose what we want to download from a website since the first web browsers. Why are ads any different? It's the same as if I decide to strip out all HTML frame and table tags just for shits and giggles. Would you call that piracy?
It's my device, and I decide what to accept from the website. If they want to block me completely, they can do that too. But they don't. Not yet.
I also have no stomach for downloading 10 megabytes worth of ads and trackers for a website where the actual content is like, 300 kilobytes. THAT is complete bullshit.
Ads aren’t payment because it’s not you the user that’s paying, it’s a 3rd party that pays the provider to shove ads at you. Which you can take or leave.
If I go to a store and don’t want to look at the ads they won’t hold me down and shove them in my face. They’re ultimately interested in me buying actual products. But Google’s real product (YouTube Premium) is not a compelling product and the vast majority of people visiting YouTube come for the freebies not the Premium.
So they’ve resorted to feeding you ads by force but you do NOT have to take it. Google can choose to lock everything behind Premium and if you bypass that then that would be piracy. But simply refusing to look at ads ain’t.
Well, for one, if you don’t want something stolen then you shouldn’t put it on your front lawn for everyone to take. There are plenty of services that require payment before you get access.
Two, they are essentially stealing our private data and selling it without our permission, so ads aren’t the only source of payment.
At no point was I informed by youtube that watching ads was a requirement for service. In fact until just now YouTube necessary even told be that using an ad- blocker was not allowed. Technically this is not the same thing. Otherwise I would be stealing every time I left the room when an ad was playing.
Reminder that farmers can spend something like a dollar per cow per year to allow their cattle to roam through public lands to cause erosion, shit in streams, spread giardia, and give farmers reasons to kill coyotes and wolves.
A 1,200 lb lactating beef animal needs around 3% of it’s body mass every day. So around 35lbs of dry matter forage per day. Works out to around 6.4 tons DM/year.
Under irrigation, In areas without freezing temps, 25tons DM/acre is possible (not easy) or 4 cows. In areas with freezing temps 12-15 tons DM/acre can be accomplished or 2 cows (1 cow if the growing season is short)
10-15" rainfall zone produces around 600lbs DM/acre of which around 50% is available (timing issue) this is around 0.15 tons DM/acre. 6.4 tons DM for one cow is around 43 acres.
In a 5-10" rainfall zone it reduces to under 200lbs DM/acre total. Or 0.05 tons DM/acre or around 128 acres per cow. With that much walking their energy needs increase by as much as 50%. Or around 200 acres/cow.
Guess who grew up on a ranch with BLM grazing ground :-) My grandfather decided going bankrupt was a better than listening to a younger more hotheaded me.
Cool cool cool, guess who grew up in Texas around 100 ranches? You aren’t accounting for how many times / much hay can be harvested from an acre of land, especially when you are talking about bahaia. While it may cost you a little more, to transport it to northern states its not 100 acres per cow. If your grandfather was a rancher, he definitely isn’t taking his cues from one granddaughter, especially if that’s how he raised your parent. We are a omnivores. We can get everything we need from both plant and animals, but as far as full chain amino acids- proteins, it is far more efficient from animals. The sad thing is we import a lot of meat, oddly enough from countries that don’t have near the land mass, and more people per acre than we have here and less regulation on how said how the meat was raised, so tell me if it take 100 acres of land to raise 1 head of cattle is possible?
Hey mathematician, there are nearly 40 million cows in the US between beef and dairy, times that by 100 hundred, and that means we would need 4 billion acres to sustain them. There is only 2.4 in all of America. You dolt.
Lol. A swing and a miss. Not even close to what I said. Try again. Since your from, Texas perhaps your should see a Dr about concussive brain trauma.
Here’s a hint. Divide 40million by 2 cows per acre and you get 20 million. That’s about how many acres we need to use to feed every cow in the U.S under irrigated annual crops production. Instead we use around 800 million acres (grassland plus forest).
So 97.5% of the land are we are using to graze cows, we don’t need to use. We do it because the government subsidizes archaic agricultural practices and makes it affordable.
They surpsingly release most methane through burping, not farting. Even more surprising is that they burp so much methane that it is measurable from space
The solution to bovine methane emissions is to install a cowalitic converter inside their mufflers. Just like we do with quad udder milk exhaust collectors.
On a serious note i read a while back that they are looking into a type of gut bacteria to give to cows which will significantly reduce the methane produced by the cows digestive system.
In some places, sure. But not everywhere they are. And you could/should reintroduce bison where they can go instead of using cattle. And the government should get more than the pittance they get per head.
Bloatware! Even assembly language is barely acceptable, best is directly changing the mechanical relays in your Zuse one, naturally. If you wanna get crazy, change the celluloid strip with another program & get Doom to run on it.
If this graph isn’t just made up bs in the first place, one thought I recall from every major college campus I’ve been to is random religious preachers camped out every day telling everyone they’re evil, subhuman, and going to hell. Guessing the atheists find that a little more annoying and worthy of shouting back at than some of the religiously inclined.
Atheists vs no response/nothing crowd are more quick to point out that you should not only have freedom of religion but also freedom from religion. I think that makes the separation between the two on this graph.
Nazi: “white power!” Normal people: “hey, stfu!” Cristian Conservatives: “hey I don’t agree with it but let’s hear him out. Some people might agree, his ideas deserve to be discussed and given a platform”
Oh I agree wholeheartedly. But every time I see his ghoulish rictus of a face it reminds me that for four miserable years the democratically elected* leader of the largest economy in the world was a philandering child rapist. One who is only now facing the slightest possibility of consequence for a tiny fraction of his crimes because he engaged in honest to god high treason. Nothing against ugly dudes. You’re cool.
And had I not made the comment it would have been the work of minutes for someone to generate a thousand like it to drum up support.
Let’s not pretend anonymous internet comments have any actual bearing here. I’m just having fun coming up with new terms for this festering troglodyte.
That fine, but I just want to see how a politician turns a history of suffering into jokes at a rally. Oddly enough I think Trump could do it and his congregation would eat it up.
I'm kinda surprised this wasn't the original announcement. I figured it would just move to a paid feature. Maybe the initial tweet (or whatever the fuck we call an X) was just to get attention.
Jan 2022: “Heres xenoblade 3, an absolutely gigantic single player game, no microtransactions, pushes the console to it’s absolute limit, Monolithsoft at the top of their fucking game. Announced today, out in september.”
April 2022: “Lol, it’s now out in july. Enjoy.”.
Baldurs gate is fucking sweet, but let’s not act like it’s a unique occurance in AAA gaming.
This isn’t a pissing contest and no one is acting like this is unique. We saw the same excitement for the last 2 Zelda games, God of War, Spiderman, Elden Ring etc. (post more examples, I don’t pay as much attention to the industry anymore so I’m sure I’ve missed a bunch). Let’s celebrate them if that’s what you’d like to see more of. They’re all awesome and they all add to the evidence that there is a large population that still want to experience games this way.
Yes actually, they are. That’s the entire reason this debate began; some developers claimed that Baldur’s Gate 3 is a unique occurrence and should be treated as such, rather than an example of a AAA video game meeting the expectations of consumers.
I think that was the point the person you replied to was getting at: not only is it completely fine for consumers to have these expectations, but it’s actually not even as rare as these developers are making out. There are other examples of AAA development studios and publishers who aren’t engaging in blatantly anti-consumer practices, so the ones that do really have no excuse.
My example was just the first that came to mind. But like baldurs gate, you can tell the amount of care and passion that has been put into it. And it’s a AAA title no matter whether people think otherwise due to it being a Switch exclusive (admittedly, I only play switch games nowadays on my PC emulated in 4k60fps but still…)
botw and todk are fps limited to 30fps by default due to their physics engine being tied to the framerate. There are workaround/hacks though to get them running smoothly in an emulator. (At least there is for the wii u version of botw in cemu, I’m not quite up to date with switch emulation but I’d be surprised if there wasn’t)
No, that was 2. That mechanic and plot point doesn’t exist in 3. 3 has very little, if any, fanservice, most due to its dark subject matter (infinite war, limited lifespans)
And yes, AAA. It cost multiple millions, hundreds of staff working on it, hundreds of hours of VA including notable UK talent (Jenna Coleman, etc), a fully orchestral soundtrack by Yasunori Mitsuda recorded in multiple countries, and the game itself pushes the switch to breaking point. It absolutely counts and is considered by Nintendo as one.
There’s loads of other examples of decent single player experiences without bullshit, this one just came to mind first. And I hope Baldurs Gate’s success brings more like these
Yes specially if people don’t know what a rootkit is. They’ll think “ah, so this is an example of a rootkit, it must be because it is upvoted a lot, nice meme *upvotes”
I run my phone without microG or Goggle Play Services.
Messaging apps run in the background so they can receive push messages, location works fine over GPS and speech recognition and synthesis works fine without Google Play Services or internet access (in English at least).
Gigaset GX290
It isn’t supported by TWRP, Magisk or any Custom ROM, so Android’s settings and ADB are the only ways to manipulate it.
There’s no way to install microG on it. So I still use some Google stuff (Speech recognition, speech synthesis and GBoard), but I deny them internet access through Netguard so they can’t phone home.
While WEI definitely doesn’t qualify as a rootkit itself, any useful attester is going to require aspects of one - whether it’s a phone asserting that it hasn’t been rooted, or a PC running with approved SecureBoot and TPM keys.
Stories I’ve heard in the last year from my friends and co-workers:
Bragging about how they got 5 hours of sleep last night because their newborn finally slept until 6am
A “funny” story about how their 5 year old managed to get a hold of some chewing gum and got it stuck in their hair and all over a rug
A potty training “success” story about how their toddler remembered to pull down their pants, but remembered mid shit they should have sat on the toilet, so they shat all over the bathroom.
They found a juice box their kid bit a hole into and then tucked under their car seat… By smelling it rotting
Trojan just needs to get a group of parents together to tell stories about their kids and paste them word for word on the back of their boxes.
As someone about to be a parent for the first time in the next couple weeks, I’m starting to understand why parents are so enamored with those little stories.
I’m so excited about being able to raise a little girl and really want to be able to teach her everything. My wife and I will be able to experience the world in a completely new way because our child will have that excitement about everything that adults lose over time.
To each their own, I completely understand why someone wouldn’t want kids, but I definitely think those stories are really the greatest things in the world to the parents. Because generally, a parent’s kid is the best kid in the world to them.
But he doesn’t have a kid yet, just an expectation.
I’m all for optimism, but always be aware that children might not meet your expectations. There’s a family with 3 severely autistic kids, all of them need constant supervision and can’t do anything themselves.
Be excited about kids, but also mindful that it is going to take a lot from your life.
I’m totally aware it’s not all going to be perfect all the time, if ever, because that’s not how life works.
But I definitely already feel unconditional love for the little thing. And I feel like it’s giving my wife and I a different kind of purpose in life.
My mom told me once that the unconditional love is hard, especially when life gets difficult. But the proudness she feels and the fulfillment having kids brought to her life is indescribable.
It’s not for everyone, but for those who enjoy it find more fulfillment than any singular other life pursuit could bring.
I love hearing all your positive attitude, and wish you all the best. I truly wish you have the best kid in the world, and I hope you both make each other the best version of yourselves. Have a good day.
I have coworker that is very good at her job, but lunch break is a pain. All she talks about is her kids. And when she does, she dominates lunch until lunch is over. If we talk about something else, she is quiet until there’s a split second pause in the conversation. Then she’s right in there with tidbits of what her kids said, did or something like that. Her kids are 10 and 12. They’re not cute anymore. She identifies her entire personality with her kids.
Luckily we can dictate ourselves if we want to come in to the office or work from home
lemmy.world
Top