yeah anytime i see anyone talking about some little change they made in their lives to be more eco friendly it makes me incredibly, deeply sad. especially if it’s at more expense or more effort for them – they’re trying their best but it’s literally completely pointless
Many of us do it for sport tbh. A healthier way to gamify life sorta. I’ve been vegan since 2015/16 and it does increase the difficulty setting somewhat, but also it’s unlocked a million fun mini games for me along the way and provided much needed community.
Give it a shot, can’t hurt. You won’t become Buddha overnight, but it can certainly put you on a path toward much different ways of seeing yourself and everything around you.
Even if it isn’t you could use the same approach in many other ways. Increase game difficulty by giving yourself bonus objectives. I gamify life quite a lot to do the boring stuff and try to be healthy. Otherwise I wouldn’t be able to keep it up.
Reducing your meat consumption is likely the most effective way of lowering your personal climate ‘footprint’.
You don’t even have to go fully vegan. Use 20%, 30% or 50% less meat and you’re already doing a lot.
Also look up climate impact of different types of food (and where it comes from), and use that to prioritize. Chicken, fish and pork are up to 10 times less impactful than beef.
I have been told by many vegans that honey and sugar are not allowed, as they are both animal products. Apparently sugar is refined by using cattle bones. They told me you can use agave nectar instead.
Honey is fine honestly. Only miseducated people would be against the use of honey as honey harvesting causes 0 damage to the hive and beekeeping actually helps save bee populations. The alternative is not helping the bees, which are already endangered.
On sugar I agree though. Sugar can come from many sources and generally you wanna cut out sugar anyway since it’s not healthy.
Vegans really need to embrace this strategy. Reduce meat consumption is a much easier sell to the majority of the world, and it would open them up to the idea that vegetables can make a complete meal.
Too many vegans I know try to get you to buy into their lifestyle from the start. Bruh, I’m an American and I can tell you from personal experience that most Americans, especially down here in the south, do not consider something a meal unless it has meat in it. You are not going to convince these people to stop eating burgers straight up. This is a cultural thing that isn’t going to be easy to change. Going full vegan is a deal breaker. Cutting back on meat for your personal health might just gain some traction.
Of course, this is all with the knowledge that trying to put the onus of fixing climate change on the individual is both doomed to fail and a great burden for many. Climate change can only be properly addressed by top-down action, which we should all advocate for.
Labeling this as “cope” is just straight slander against vegetarianism. Most people who are vegetarian don’t expect “it’s going to change the world” so there’s no “coping” to be had with the fact that it’s not.
Vegetarianism choices can be based in health, ethics, not wanting to support mega corps, dislike of the taste, environmental impact, among other things. “it’s going to save us from climate change in light of everything else going on in the world” is a tiny clueless subset of just ONE of those rationales.
Vegeterianism isn’t “hopeless” or “cope” unless you’re delusional enough to believe that everyone doing so would instantly solve our problems. Sure, some people think if everyone did it, it would make a difference, but very few think it’d fix all our problems.
Exactly. It’s only pointless as long as other people think it’s pointless. If everyone made changes we could see a noticable impact happen.
Billionaires need to change too, they do more than their fair share of polluting, but it doesn’t mean we are all off the hook. We should hold them accountable and also each of us strive to be better.
Does one person saying that they voted for change in the government make you incredibly, deeply sad? Just one vote in millions after all. Little things can collectively add up to something big.
It isn’t pointless, it’s our thinkings that makes it pointless. “It wouldn’t do much if it’s just me living eco friendly”, yes it doesn’t do much since alot of people thinks the same, and that leads to no progress.
Let’s throw away a decade of branding that most companies would kill to have, and instead replace it with a symbol that people click on to escape from ads.
You’re right, as an American I knew the specific government agency that overthrew foreign governments. But I don’t mean to imply that the U.S. government is blameless.
They have an American bias because they are American therefore they could be more specific about the American centric piece of information. Your lack of literacy doesn’t change the definition of the word bias.
I mean if people would actually admit that new games have been declining in quality and stop pouring money into these lower quality games we’d still have high quality games on the regular.
But no everyone shit their pants when planned dlcs became the norm and jizzed in their pants so hard gaming corporations realized they can peddle half assed games and people will still shell out whatever price they demand
Yeah this happened to me when i only used Reddit. Now they get even more confused because it is (almost) only lemmy. Because most people have at least heard the name reddit, but not lemmy.
I don’t see it happening as we are entering a period of explosive progress with AI that surely will find ways to make water bountiful all over. Not a guarantee though and for sure the path to that future will have some bumps. Already has some.
Okay, but you do realize that comeback makes you look bad right, not us? No matter your reasons or intentions, you are mocking children being murdered. Like in the example below:
American: lol British people eat spotted dicks.
A brit: lol American children get shot at school.
Wow. What a zinger, you really got me with that one, a fool I was to not recognize the comedy of children dying horrifically.
(To be clear, I didn’t come up with that example randomly. I’ve seen the mocking of spotted dick be met with “lol child murder” more than once)
It’s a fucking ignorant ass jab directed at the wrong people. The majority of Americans support stricter gun laws, it is NOT the common mans fault that our centuries old political system is set up in a way that a minority party can have so much influence.
Like I already said, no matter the reasons or intentions, they ARE mocking children being murdered. Maybe it’s “lol you guys let children die lol” instead of “lol child death lol”, but either way children are dead and they are laughing. Meanwhile, the majority of Americans are horrified by it and pissed off nothing is being done by our government to stop it.
It’s also just incredibly thin-skinned. Really, you’re gonna get so offended over a joke about spotted dick that your only response is “you guys have school shootings lol”.
The majority of Americans support stricter gun laws, it is NOT the common mans fault that our centuries old political system is set up in a way that a minority party can have so much influence.
I didn’t personally throw any tea into the Boston harbor but you better believe I’m going to use that as ammo against a brit if I feel like it. Personal agency has no meaning when talking about entire countries.
Civility politics is cringe as fuck. Get over yourself and threaten to liberate their country instead of whining about people being mean on the internet.
Nobody is mocking children for being murdered, that would be disgusting.
People are mocking the very much unique to the US culture of yes, we know children are being shot in schools, and no, we aren’t going to do anything about it, you crazy freedom-hating commie!
It’s a macabre mocking of your crazy gun culture and politics. Not of your children. I thought that was pretty obvious.
Sure, maybe it’s crass for me to mock you for something so traumatic, but on the plus side I have never personally murdered a child so I think I’m doing just fine.
The overwhelming majority of so-called school shootings are single-target attacks over gang/drug disputes carried out by poor inner-city kids. They’re victims of poverty and mental health, no amount of overnight gun reform will fix the illegal guns that these kids have access to.
If you honestly compare Germany and the US, you will notice that the prevalence of rape is much higher in the US (US: ~43/100k vs. Ger: ~15/100k, source: statista.com). Comparing gang rape specifically is more difficult though, because the US doesn’t seem to keep track of that (or at least i couldn’t find absolute numbers). According to Wikipedia 22.8% of rapes with female victims where gang rapes. That makes ~9/100k in the US vs ~1/100k in Germany.
Then again I don’t think statistics regarding a lot of crimes are easily comparable. There might be differences regarding underreporting and legal definitions that skew numbers in different ways.
It’s not whataboutism when it’s on topic. You should look up that word. Also, anecdotes don’t matter when you try to compare things. Statistics do though.
You should be ashamed of yourself. Many wonderful people live in this country. We have so much to do - and yes, we are plagued by many horrors - but we persevere.
What do you want me to do? Wave my hands and say some magic words and presto have everything be fixed? It doesn’t fucking work that way.
I do what I can within my means. I vote every election for candidates supporting gun and mental healthcare reforms, I do my best to educate my less politically aware friends, I support activist organizations, etc… I’m fucking sorry if I’m not personally out there torching politicians houses or whatever the fuck you expect me to do, but I’ve got people that depend on me not being in fucking prison.
At least over here we do have some school shootings even with stricter European gun control laws. It‘s just not as prevalent as in the US.
I guess sometimes overly criticising the US can be seen as some kind of envy. The freedom we admire but the shortcomings we don’t want to have or admit. It‘s just that this extreme bipartisanship and reluctance to talk civilly with each other is disheartening to see.
I’m not sure there’s much of a consumer market for those products. At least not in the self-operated and self-hosted way you might be thinking. I feel like way too many of us here have major blinders on in the way non-experts or non-hobbyists approach a vast majority of technology and technology adjacent subjects.
Speaking as if I were a layman, why would I download and install a word processor when I can just login to gdocs and have it there?
And in regards to enterprise, you’d be hard pressed to find any tech crew willing to stake their career on open source, user facing tools that don’t have a robust support structure in place.
I use OpenOffice and Libre Office on the regular at work.
Sorry, but Word is wayway more advanced than both. Both in ease of use and extended feature set.
Quick question: is steam being extremely slow in inplementing a competitive product to gamepass (I assume they should since recurring revenue and all) or am I on the wrong track?
You’ve got Firefox and Brave. Edge + Chrome are based on the free software Blink engine, while Webkit is one of the only free software projects Apple develops and maintains. Who doesn’t use VLC? Bitwarden is a popular password manager. About 50% of the world uses Android, which is nominally free software with some proprietary components. Blender is the world’s most successful free software project. A surprising amount of mainstream artists use Krita. People who download torrents are probably using a free software BitTorrent client like qbittorrent, Deluge, or Transmission, rather than uTorrent. A lot of people use the uBlock Origin extension, which is a free software content blocker.
And hey, everyone who has played DOOM was playing a game released under the GPLv2 in 1999, minus the game data.
File hosting isn’t really an issue of free software, because very few people will host their own cloud storage server. It’s more about relying on servers to provide a service rather than software, which is a good and bad thing.
This is kind of a neutral point, but a lot of software has become services accessed through a web client (browser). This means anyone on any operating system can access the service so long as they have a browser, which evens the playing field for us SerenityOS and Haiku users :^).
Business reasons. Some companies like to pay for licensing because that will lower the chance of getting wacked by a patent troll lawsuit. Vin addition they like being and to call someone when something goes wrong.
Even a database with no licensing fees costs money in terms of wages/salaried employee time to use, so while that cost advantage is real, there are costs on both sides. If MS has products you want to use that are much easier (read: cheaper) to use with their paid database than some free alternative, that’s certainly a good reason to consider it.
The longer you use it, the less likely it is to pay off, but execs focused on short term profits don’t weigh that very highly.
Just because something is available for free doesn’t mean it’s better for all use cases. There are cases where Oracle will perform better than Postgres (and vice versa of course).
And there’s a business case for finger pointing — security issue with your open source DB install? It’s either your fault (configuration), or the fault of some possibly volunteer engineer (bug). But if you pay enough, the whole thing is Oracle’s problem, and you can tell investors with a straight face that it’s not your fault. And Oracle are big enough that it’s an easy decision to defend should something go wrong (which is something of a self fulfilling prophecy, but that’s the way it is).
But yeah, whenever I need a database it’s Postgres :)
Typically support is cheaper and many times infrastructure and high availability will be baked into the contract. Unless you are planning the service as a core business capability it’s typically cheaper to support.
Im a business intelligence analysts and would love to have the opportunity to work with Tableu (not sure if its FOSS, or just OS), but everyone is on the PowerBI train, except the company I work with that for some reason goes with QlikSense that sucks.
Lighting was a good cable when apple made the switch from 30 pin connector and android was still trying to figure out whether they would use microUSB, miniUSB, and whatever the sam hell this is. And there was no interoperability
Once USB became the standard their was no real reason to hold onto lightning other than it being proprietary and them wanting to hand hold their users
Once USB became the standard their was no real reason to hold onto lightning other than it being proprietary and them wanting to hand hold their users
Well if the lockout chip rumors are true, they’ve basically just made Lighting 2, Electric Boogaloo that just happens to be shaped like USB-C but is incompatible with all non-Apple approved connectors.
The reason to hold onto it after USB-C was the literally millions of devices that had been released at the time that used it. There’s a reason people made a stink about moving away from the 30-pin despite Lightning being objectively better. It’s the same situation here.
That is micro-USB 3.0 and it’s an annoying connector that now is just as obsolete as micro-USB 2.0 and for some reason, around 2014, sone smartphone manufacturers thought it was a good idea adding it on their phones. Didn’t last long and got replaced by normal micro-USB again (which is much worse than lightning imo).
That is straight up not true. I have multiple flagship devices with mini-USB and, within those, some have mini-A while others have mini-B. Google’s own Nexus devices had mini-USB connectors.
The first “Google phone” was the HTC Dream (T-Mobile G1) with MiniUSB. Next was the Nexus One with MicroUSB. Everything after used MicroUSB until the Nexus 5X with USB-C.
Google’s own Nexus devices had mini-USB connectors.
I was addressing this point in particular. There were no “Nexus” devices with MiniUSB, so it was clear quite early that Google considered MicroUSB to “the right port” for Android.
This might be true for a very select few devices. Before usb-c I have never seen something else besides micro USB on an android device (besides the micro USB 3.0 connection, but you could put a normal micro USB cable in those)
Yeah, the common EPS initiative (mandating USB 2.0 micro-B) was in effect since 2009. That’s right around the time smartphones were getting popular. Even my last slide phone had micro-USB. Maybe there were different models for different markets though, a product doesn’t need to follow EU law if it’s only sold in the US.
It used to be a jungle unless the device specifically had micro-USB during the initial Android days. micro-USB funnily standardised Android devices, and now USB-C has unified everything.
LoL people forgetting the massive ball of random USB styles hrydra-ing from a single cable that existed just labeled “Android” that I had clipped to my backpack to help people charge their phone.
You could just plug in a micro cable and get a charge, so old cables in the car or at the office worked fine (well…as fine as Micro-USB ever worked), just more slowly
Well that and the made for iPhone program made them apparently 5 billion a year on the lightning cable alone. That’s not just first party. That’s also third party connectors.
Gen Z’s biggest problem (which spawns all the other problems) is being constantly online, but it’s hardly their fault. The older generations (which I’m part of) founded the internet, molded it into digital heroin, and then went ahead and purchased the kids their devices that had mostly no restrictions or protections.
Something about the demise of 3rd spaces (ie public parks) also plays a role. Just yesterday was told we couldn’t have a library in our neighborhood because of lack of surface level parking.
But then you’ll just be making it harder for my automobile overlords to have complete control over our shitty infrastructure! Don’t you just love going anywhere and seeing nothing but parking lots?
Internet through the 90s and smartphone adoption in the late 00s-early 2010s changed so much about how people interacted. I was part of the last generation to adopt the internet growing up and can remember not having it.
Boomers get shit on but they at least had some fulfillments of their generational ideals, they probably changed their own world more than any other generation by their own will so far. They had civil rights and strong unions which counts for something. They couldn’t escape the apparatus that sustained them and will always be defined by it, all the rock and roll in the world cant bring down the institutions, they merely adopted it for themselves.
GenX was the exact opposite, the notion of authenticity going back to the boomers reached it’s apex at the exact time economic conditions stripped away any meaning and relevance of it. They both had the dream and saw it dismantled, got the first popular reactions towards the coming climate doom, with the backdrop of impending nuclear apocalypse. At least they could ride on the coattails of the post-war economy, and benefitted from the 90s.
GenZ actually has it the worst so far, they never had the dream GenX did. With internet and smartphones they now see themselves at all times from the perspective of how other’s see them, they exist fully saturated in this hyperreal space of endless consumption. They don’t have the economic benefits of previous generations, and their GenX parents probably need their retirement money. GenZ is experiencing the strain of the empire, the degradation of social services, the weight of the impending climate catastrophe, meaningless politics and all routes for change blocked off. They have the fake world to escape to and can experience anything they want at almost any time. They are self-aware of this though, at least the smart ones are, they know it’s bullshit but they don’t think that matters, and they’re absolutely right.
Gen Z’s biggest problem (which spawns all the other problems) is being constantly online
huge citation needed…
couldn’t possibly the rigged economy, two tiered justice system, racism baked into every system, religious fundamentalism, imminent environmental collapse, no it’s the phones…
Your argument would be valid if this phenomenon was specific to USA, but it’s not. It’s happening (to my knowledge) everywhere where kids were given unrestricted access to the Internet. That’s the common denominator, not political or social issues.
That we also have political and social issues is not making the situation easier, but I don’t believe that’s the root cause for kids’ increased mental issues. The previous generations had their part of alarmism and issues as well – e.g. world wars, nukes, oil crises, cold war, smaller wars everywhere all the time (Korea and Vietnam even constituted a general draft in the US, which must have not been a great time), satanism panic/red scare/gay scare.
You’re right it’s not only the US. But he’s also right that phones are not the only reason / common denominator. Basically every country has a rigged economy and a two class justice system - some more, some less. But the ruling class secured their privileges everywhere. Our planet’s doom looming over the horizon is also a global phenomenon.
What unrestricted access to the internet is doing: it’s making everyone much more aware of those things, their global scale. Everyone gets a feeling of how bad it is because there seems to be no greener pasture anymore.
Right, cause commies don’t dream of a better future. They seize the means of production, put you to work, and then creatively fuck with you and forcibly shut your whiny ass up if you try to say something stupid.
The status quo of not throwing a revolution, letting a bunch of authoritarian assholes take charge and handle the communist transition as heads of the Party, locking up anyone who vocally doesn’t like them and their shit, and calling that better?
If people werent Ukraine defending Nazis then there might not be an issue. If you can’t handle someone having a different opinion then get off the internet
That’s not what I said though, is it? I’m talking about you, your anger, and the fact that whatever your position may be, lashing out at people with such vitriol is counterproductive and shows you to be completely un-self-aware.
As they say, go touch grass. You are completely off your rocker.
If they just want to hear they are right and the conservatives are correct then I think they ought to go engage with those nuts on that “news”. You lot obviously have fallen for that bullshit so may as well continue to waste your life watching it since it’s obviously true to you. You are just some conservative roll who can fuck right off
Sure, if the DLC isn’t cut content from the game. That’s the problem. If they have already developed the content, then it should be released with the rest of the game, for the price of the game. DLC, should it be developed at all, should be an expansion beyond the original scope of development funded by the excess profit from the game.
the worst fucking offender at this has to be Mass Effect, and this is coming from someone who deeply loves Mass Effect.
I don’t buy DLC on principle, I will buy a proper expansion but not a DLC, so when I started Mass Effect 3 I didn’t understand what the fuck was going on. I had to google it because the start of the game ties in with a DLC from the second game, what a crock of shit.
Yep big fan is Mass Effect here and I will FOREVER be mad at the Day one DLC for Javik. I finally got him in Legendary Edition and oh my God, he is so essential to so many stories, especially Thesia mission. Like holy shit!
I think the start of Mass Effects 3 they change it based off of if you played the DLC of Arrival. Because from my understanding, Shepard is in jail because they work with Cerberus, whereas if you have the DLC it’s because of the Batarians.
I dont think you’re thinking about this right. Stuff like DLC has never been funded from profits of a specific game, that’s not how company finances work. They may decide to create an expansion or extension of a product they weren’t planning if a product does better than expected, but a lot of time, it’s too late by then and you’ve missed the wave to capitalize on the success. Most things like this are planned pretty early on based on the projected success. The base game and the DLC might even have separate budgets.
And all that to say, the DLC shouldn’t factor into your evaluation of a game at all. If you would like the amount of content in the game if the DLC never existed, then they added enough. You aren’t owed more content because of when they developed it, that’s absurd thinking. And if it for some reason got coded into law, it wouldn’t make anyone add more content to the base game, they’d just wait until after the game is released to start developing it. Which would make for a worse experience for both the company and consumer.
I agree with the person you replied to: if a game feels incomplete, then that’s the problem. I’m not going to pay for an incomplete game, regardless if it has DLC or not. But if a game is complete and I enjoy it, I’ll pay for DLC to get more experience from it and it doesn’t matter to me when the DLC is developed.
Yeah I don’t understand this mindset. It’d be like saying it shouldn’t be allowed for cars to have different versions with more features because they were developed together. DLC is supposed to be an additional feature like lane assist or something. You can get just the base version for cheaper or you can get a version with more features but you pay more. If the product sucks without the extra features than the problem is an incomplete product.
I get that we want to pay less and get more, but they can’t give away stuff for free.
If they have already developed the content, then it should be released with the rest of the game, for the price of the game.
Why? Genuine question. What does it matter to you as a consumer when the content was developed?
If the point you’re actually trying to make is “if the game is developed as a whole, but then content is carved out such that the base game then feels incomplete without it”, then this is already covered: a game which feels incomplete is inherently flawed, and so doesn’t justify the price of a full game. That’s my original point - most people are actually just pissed at inaccurate or unfair pricing, and DLC can enable that (but doesn’t have to), so they misdirect their anger to all DLC instead.
When a company actually exists that utilizes your view of DLC, then it might be a valid criticism of the phrasing; but zero day one DLC released for any game has been anything but carving up a complete product into an incomplete main product and several DLCs to increase the price without increasing the price. Oblivion was the first example of this. Horse Armor was already developed.
When a company actually exists that utilizes your view of DLC, then it might be a valid criticism of the phrasing
No, that’s precisely the point I’m trying to make - “every example of X that has existed so far is Y” does not imply “by definition, X is provably and definitively always Y”.
You can claim that all DLC that has ever existed is predatory and exploitative (I suspect there are counter-examples; but, fine, whatever, not relevant to my point). You can say that, because of past performance, you are disinclined to trust future examples of DLC or give them the benefit of the doubt. That is all reasonable. But you can’t conclude “because all DLC so far has been bad, the concept of DLC as a whole is bad and can never be used well”.
As a super-simple example - here are some prime numbers: 5, 11, 37. Are all prime numbers odd? I can give you a bunch more examples if you want!
Day 1 DLC, no matter how optional it might be in practicality, is 100% a tactic to make people feel like they need to pay more to get the “complete” version of the game.
“_Every person who has ever done in the past, has done it with and it had _” does not imply “_The only reason anyone could possibly ever do is with to achieve _”. That’s a valid reason to be cautious, but not a reason to make blanket statements about an entire category of thing.
EDIT: for Day1 DLC in particular, a totally valid and non-exploitative reason for it is “we had a release date that we absolutely had to hit (because of marketing, contracts, etc.), which necessitated calling a production halt well in-advance of the release date for QA and testing - but instead of moving on to the next project, developers worked on more stuff for the same game. If that was too complex or didn’t work out, we could drop it and no-one would complain; but if we’d kept developing it in the base game, and resulted in a slipped release date, there would be hell to pay”
Yes, the “R” gear makes the car go backwards just like how the Republican party makes progress in America go backwards. TBH the same logic would apply if the gear was labeled “D”. Me and my comrades believe that socialism comes first then communism because if you start in a higher gear the engine will stall out but lower gears are quite slow and don’t make full use of the car and its powers.
memes
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.