Pretty sure the biggest victims of this were Rockapella (who apparently did every a cappella song) and Weird Al (who apparently recorded every comedy song).
Yes. I once downloaded a Stroke9 greatest hits album, and it included the song “Story of a girl”. When it came on, I thought “huh, I didn’t know they did this song. Cool.” Then for more than 10 years I thought it was their song.
Don’t Worry Be Happy by Bob Marley was the one I remember. It was not by Bob Marley at all. It was by Bobby McFarren and came out years after Marley died.
Bear children to feed into the soulless machine of neoliberal international capital ? No thanks Abe, I choose extinction. Humanity would have been gone long ago, we just didn’t realise we had the choice to not continue existing. Thank you inventor of abortion and contraceptive pill finally we can escape this horrible planet and cease to exist.
Given the context Interdimemsionalmeme provides in their comment, I think neoliberal makes perfect sense. Why bring another human being into a dying world where their labor will be exploited until they die?
Because in all of human history, the people who exploit workers are NOT liberal. They are the robber barons who run governments and corporations. Words mean things. So either you don’t know what “liberal” means or you are UP to something, trying to push some "everything bad in the world the fault of ‘liberals’ " nosense.
If u disagree with the term neoliberalism that’s fine but it’s a widespread and useful term that exists in common usage regardless as to what u think of it. If u haven’t read its definition I recommend u check it out! ☺️
To be fair “neoliberalim” is a really misleading name. It does basically just mean “proto-conservative” which can be really confusing if you don’t already know what you’re talking about
I think it’s best that you take some sort of political history course before you start yelling at other people about how ‘they’re using liberal wrong’. Just because something has the word liberal in it does not mean it is in reference to certain democratic socialist ideologies; or god forbid you think that liberalism and leftism are synonymous.
One of the worst most infuriating games I played the last 2 years is one of the biggest hits of that period : elden ring.
What a total pile of horse shit that is. Nothing is explained, it’s just a pile of numbers called stats. What they do? Fuck you. Where do I have to go? Fuck you. How do I win from this and that boss? Fuck you. Total unplayable garbage.
Untill you give in and open one of the fan made guides. Then it all comes together. Then it makes sense. But the game doesn’t explain shit. From software couldn’t be bothered.
With a guide it’s one of the most fun games. Left on its own, without any sort of explanation it’s garbage.
And don’t get me started on diablo 4, what a load of house crap is that. It’s so very boring. Again nothing is explained because fuck you, blizzivision just wants your money. But here it doesn’t matter because you’re so very overpowered on level 1/2 you can win anything and everything. Want it less easy? Fuck you, first complete the campaign. Then you can do it again and again.
From my pov old school Zoomer shit is where its at. This modern bullshit is just that: bullshit.
I don’t think I can agree with you here. Elden ring, for all of its flaws, is one of the last true honest to God video games you can buy recently. For $60 you get a complete, no microtransaction, no battle pass, no cosmetics, whole, playable game.
There aren’t pieces taken out and sold back to you one item at a time like Sims 4. You don’t have to buy the horse dlc or spend money to get the magic battle pass. It wasn’t a completely buggy mess from the start like no man’s sky or cyberpunk 2077. There’s no integrated battle pass designed to suck your wallet and your soul dry like in Overwatch 2 or COD. There’s no cosmetics to make you look like SpongeBob SquarePants or any other fictional character like in Fortnite and countless other games. This is a game that knows what it is and doesn’t try and bait you into playing it like the others.
Sure it’s difficulty is hard and it doesn’t hand hold you but it certainly doesn’t require you to use the wiki. Don’t get me wrong your experience WILL be better with it but one of the big marketing points was the sites of grace pointing you where to go. The game actually goes through some trouble to make sure you understand what it is when you get to the round table hold. Gameplay mechanics are also explained in the inventory under the info items tab. But by and large you’re supposed to learn through doing here.
Largely I agree that recent games are more slot machines with collectable crap tacked on but Elden Ring is not an example of a zoomer game. Hard? Sure. Garbage? Not on your life.
Not having MTX doesn’t make a game immediately good.
I agree with both you and the person you replied to, but, while the story definitely isn’t barebones, it’s explained like shit. It’s a caveat of souls games, but that doesn’t make it okay, it makes it inaccessible to people who haven’t played a souls game before.
Elden Ring was a lot of people’s first fromsoft game, and from what I understand you’ll get about 80% of the story and world building through watching YouTube videos. Yeah, I’m sure there’s characters in the game that give a little backstory here and there, and I’m sure there’s descriptions of the world through items and such, but there’s “giving the player the freedom to figure it out, and not holding their hand”, and “fuck it this dude you might never meet in the game has an incredibly important piece of information, you’ll only realize after you Google ‘what am I missing about this game’” and Elden Ring falla under the second category.
A story as complex and in depth as Elden Ring’s deserves to be explained better, in game.
Still not a Zoomer game. I think it’s just in a weird spot where it’s catering to a very specific audience so it’s much harder to become a fan of when put up against other games of it’s caliber
I don’t like the sims games or their business model. But saying that they cut content to release as DLC is a bit overboard.
The game is very different to what it was at release. Releasing all that extra content for free wouldn’t make a lot of sense when a lot of people have spent a lot of years creating it.
Now, the amount of DLC Is insane. All the packs are stupid.
It should just be big DLCs and no small shitty clothes or animal packs or whatever.
Paradox games are a bit like that too, but imo they are more reasonable since you don’t need DLC and they release free updates with a few new features as well as paid DLCs.
It makes a lot more sense if you have the context from the Soulsborne games. The series started much simpler, with (mostly) linear progression, fewer weapons/abilities, and shorter “quests.” Part of the appeal of those games was the mystery, and the community that grew around solving the unexplained quests/mechanics/lore. The games were shorter, and the maps smaller, so it was easier to explore on your own.
Then with Elden Ring, it just exploded with content, built around the same game play mechanics. For veteran Soulsborne players, it plays like the next title in the series. The only really novel mechanics are the open world and spirit ashes. The downside is (at least for me), the world is so large that it’s a chore to explore everything. I finished my first play through and lost the will to start a +1 game. In contrast to Dark Souls 3, where I completed at least 6 play throughs.
But if you don’t have that context…yeah i’d imagine Elden Ring is overwhelming in its complexity and scale. Trying to figure out Soulsborne mechanics and navigate this giant world with little direction sounds daunting. Pitting you against the grafted scion to die immediately, and right after putting the tree sentinel in your way, was a confusing way to start the game, even for me.
I mean, the stuff with Elden Ring is on purpose. There are a lot of gamers who like when a game let’s them figure that stuff out. I get why it’s not your style of game, but you’re acting like it’s laziness or bad game design when it’s entirely intentional and absolutely has an audience. Fromsoft made it for that specific audience.
I’ll agree that Diablo is just more of the same 2013+ version of the gaming market, the kind that leaned heavily toward monetization with zero competition to improve game loops or increase depth.
That being said, back in the day you didn’t have a mini map and a compass to point you to every single place on your Ubisoft fetch quest open world “chore list disguised as a videogame” nonsense. You had to figure out the game and read the manual, etc.
Elden Ring is meant to be “Hey, we know you’re sick of playing the 593857th reskin of Assassin’s Division: Ghost Cry, try out something that respects your intelligence.”
Thank you for the reminder to go listen to his new album! Skimmed a few articles that say it’s outstanding.
Edit: I’m back after a full listen through, start to finish. What an absolute banger of an album! The Best Eminem. Feels like a short time machine journey to the early 2000s but with modern references. Now I understand why at the end of the meme it’s all angry faces, lmao.
Yea basically the album transitions from a cringe Slim Shavy vs Eminem bunch of stuff into a Slim Shady being killed turning it into more of a solo “classic” Eminem.
It’s littered with reference and remix of his older lyrics and tracks, which is nice in a maybe too nostalgic kind of way, but as and old millennial, I still think playing the offensive Slim Shady character and putting it next to a “reformed” Emined that yells “OMG you can’t say that nooooo!” is, at best, dumb as fuck and smells of “Marshall you don’t really get the point do you?”.
But to be fair none of what he was saying back in the 2000s was any more acceptable. You listened to it without possibly agreeing to it.
The concept album is Slim Shady is trying to get Eminem cancelled. The album is filled with typical Slim Shady comments and jokes from the older years (modernized) that are now considered too offensive. Now, (I’ve heard) Gen Z and others who are listening to this stuff for the first time are getting confused and upset thinking he’s a terrible person.
But, all the fans who wanted this got exactly what they wanted and seem to be genuinely happy with the album. It’s those who are shocked at the lyrics that are upset. Anyone who’s been a fan for long enough knows it’s just for jokes.
So the joke is, Eminem gave fans what they asked for and then some of the younger people are thinking it’s too offensive and are now upset.
The following is an Eminem lyric that todays kids wouldn’t like
My words are like a dagger with a jagged edge That’ll stab you in the head, whether you’re a fag or lez Or a homosex, hermaph or a trans-a-vest Pants or dress, hate fags? The answer’s yes
However I think it aged pretty well in that the subject matter is still topical
The next is one with dated references that would need to be updated
But I can’t figure out which Spice Girl I want to impregnate (Oh) And Dr. Dre said, “Slim Shady, you a basehead” (Uh-uh) “Then why’s your face red? Man, you wasted” Well, since age 12, I felt like I’m someone else 'Cause I hung my original self from the top bunk with a belt Got pissed off and ripped Pamela Lee’s tits off And smacked her so hard I knocked her clothes backwards like Kris Kross
I dunno if it’s “family sharing” or some other thing, but I can play games from my sister’s library through some means that I set up a couple of years ago.
I was referring more to the “Years of Service” badge you can find on your Steam profile, whose count begins when your account was created. It shows on the page when you look at the badge itself. Mine shows it was created on August 4, 2006.
Naw I didn’t mean that, but hell yeah let’s be here anyway. To me, technically the joke is that none of us probably bother to put in our real birth month and date when Steam asks us to verify our age before viewing the next game suggestion in our discovery queue or wherever; just spin that wheel for the year lol. But the wording you pointed out is the only tipoff that it’s what I’m talking about, over-explaining would have made it boring, and if I go too subtle, then nobody gets it. I was genuinely thanking ye for the noticing the deliberate wording and I hope you got a chuckle :D
Nah, because while it would be very easy to implement something like that, it would require specifically doing it. Programmers have 3 reasons for writing code
It’s cool. It’s necessary. I was told to do it in exchange for money
(And the secret fourth reason, it just kinda happened. I was building this related thing and I realized it’d be stupid easy to toss it in…I was in a fugue state and I have no idea what I wrote, but it’s some of my best code ever)
Devs don’t generally care about this kind of thing, and most of the time neither do the business folk. This kind of unnecessary crackdown only comes up when consultants like McKinney, who I’ve recently learned are the reason everything sucks
Allowing libraries to accrue over generations is something business folk keenly care about because it impacts profits over time.
It’s literally why they have rules against transferring ownership.
You can tell yourself it’s for other reasons, but you’d just be lying to yourself about Valve being more benevolent than they actually are. They actually are in it to make money. Being told to do it in exchange for money is pretty much why this will happen.
Valve, at the end of the day, is still a company even if they’re marginally more consumer friendly than most. (Let’s not ignore that a lot of their “consumer friendly” decisions, like being able to return games, were literally because of laws saying they had to. They didn’t do it out of the “goodness of their hearts,” they did it because in some places they were being legally required to do so.)
But will they care if the account continues buying games? Is it easier to let it slide, or force someone to make a new account, there by pissing them off?
but by that point, whoever the inheritors of the account were have probably been paying money and adding new games to it for decades. why would valve destroy their relationship with that customer just because they might still technically have access to some hundred year old games that either don’t even run on modern systems, or might even be public domain by that point?
I cannot imagine they’re going to keep family sharing as is - currently a couple of buddies and I shared a family account and now we all have access to over 700 games. I only had to coordinate with one of them, we all basically chained off each other. The abuse must be massive.
Come on dude…are you kidding? You and I could do a family share without any risk to each other and share our entire libraries tonight. That is not the sameas handing off to your buddies. I love the family sharing program, I am currently using it. I am not against piracy. Let’s get all that out of the way.
Surely you see the potential issue here if this is supposed to be a family sharing program?
I was under the impression that if someone is playing a game from your library you can’t access it unless you boot them out (or you put steam in offline mode, meaning no updates or multiplayer for the duration). Is that no longer true?
Yeah but that’s only a problem if both of you want to play the same game at the exact same time. It’s like sharing a physical copy of a game with your friend but it instantly transports to their computer/console.
I replied the same thing to another comment, but I had thought it locked down the whole library rather than just the one game being played. I could have sworn I ran into that issue but it’s been a long time since I tried it do I suppose I misremembered.
I started elden ring from a family share recently, friend hasn’t gotten the dlc so I’m just getting to experience the main game for free before deciding if I actually want to spend 80 on the game and dlc
Deep level irony that you used a Simpsons meme, which takes place in a city that suffers from a Nuclear Power Plant that doesn’t dispose of nuclear waste properly.
Every form of energy generation is problematic in the hands of capital. Security measures can and are often considered unnecessary expense. And even assuming that they will respect all safety standards, we still have the problem of fuel: France, for example, was only able to supply its plants at a cheap cost because of colonialism in Africa. Therefore, nuclear energy potentially has the same geopolitical problems as oil, in addition to the particular ones: dual technology that can and is applied in the military, not necessarily but mainly atomic bombs.
It’s not completely unfunny because of the unintentional irony. Tough it definitely belongs to that specific category of “meme” commonly seen on r/politicalmemes or any of its variants on the feedverse: usually a frame from The Office with text written on a whiteboard, with the ubiquity of the complete absence of a joke.
Yeah, I’d tend to agree on that. Even beyond the security issues, nuclear has the potential to be a safe, but it also has the potential to be disastrous if mis-managed.
Now imagine a plant in Texas, where power companies response to winter outages has basically been “sucks to be you, winterizing is too costly”.
Or maybe we’d like to go with a long-time trusted company, who totally wouldn’t throw away safety and their reputation for a few extra bucks. Boeing comes to mind.
I like nuclear as a power source, but the absolutely needs to be immutable rules in place to ensure it is properly managed and that anyone attempting to cut corners to save costs gets slapped down immediately. Corporate culture in North America seems to indicate otherwise.
Don’t care about achievements play games till like 70% then drop them. If it stops being fun I’m done, finishing a game is never a requirement don’t have time for that
I got to like 98% in RDR2 before I realized the gambling ones were going to be a giant pain in the ass. At that point I was in too deep to give up. I watched all 3 Robocop movies in one sitting and still didn’t complete the last blackjack one. Eventually got it but that was a frustrating experience.
Yea I was like looking for a solution online because I was like “there’s no way you’re just supposed to brute force this” and came across so many people that were like “no there’s no trick but I got in like 30 minutes”
Yeah unless the story is good I’m rarely going to stick around for the last bit, which is usually just padding. Actually, good difficulty levels / other accessibility options have been a nice development.
Let’s you turn down the volume on the gameplay so you can finish for the story.
It’s just taking nice blue-white natural light and pissing harsh yellow light all over it.
It makes me wonder if we have different amounts of blue cones, that they literally can’t see all the blue light. Is there one of those colour blind tests that can estimate cone density?
That’s true. Office fluorescents are often a very clinical and harsh tone.
Maybe it’s something to do with the breadth of the spectrum? Are some eyes better at utilizing a wife spectrum even if the intendity is lower, while other eyes care prinarily about the maximum intensity?
Or maybe it’s something to do with exposure? Some people can’t see the intensity difference between spill light from outside and dedicated room lights because their brain adjusts the effective exposure differently?
Maybe it’s overexposure filtering. Some people get headaches from brighter light but don’t notice the brightness because of all the extra work their visual cortex is doing to filter out the extra light, while other people genuinely need the extra intensity?
Apparently all eyes are not created equal in ability to transfer light to the retina. Some has narrower or wider fields of vision as well. So, where your eyes may be well adapted to low light levels, others may not be. In a world with no artificial shadows and the sun high on the sky for most of the year, being able to filter out sun light might have been a pro, while now needing lots of artificial lights to see straight.
I mean as far as I understand it for me, being heavily ADHD, it’s a sensory thing, i feel overloaded and overwhelmed when that light is on me, like it blasting me with it’s energy. I also cannot be touched when I feel greasy (after eating greasy foods for example)
I did not in any way mean to suggest sensitivity is not a factor, only to suggest that light sensitivity may be more of a spectrum and that there are persons living in a darker world than others. So, it may not be a person on the top of the bell curve that need more light, but someone on the other end of the spectrum entirely.
Since the top comment in this thread was about needing more light in an already bright room i meamt to say that there might be reasons why people around us prefer 1 or 100000 lumen…
I’d be really surprised if people who have a neurological abnormality also happen to have a difference in eye anatomy, especially when the neurological anomaly is associated with other sensory processing issues. Occam’s razor suggests that all the sensory processing issues NNT people have are a result of their brains being different.
Is it possible that the sensory processing differences are caused by the difference in retina cells? That the cerebellum develops differently to deal with different inputs and thus behaves differently elsewhere?
I find it hard to imagine that the difference between needing the room lights because it’s too dark and only noticing the shift in colour temperature is just due to visual processing. If the eyes are the same, why can some people see well and others less so?
Itvs interesting that you find yellow light to be harsh. Normally, the yellower tones (2700k-3500k) are called warm and soft white. Daylight is 6500k with a notable blue tone and neutral white is somewhere around 4500K. Is your office also filled with brown/dirty surfaces that seem highlighted by the warm light or grays that clash with it? Florescent lights (and cheap LEDs) are especially harsh in general because they have really bad color rendering, meaning certain tones get muted and distort perception. Letting in daylight may just be helping restore color vibrance. Bluer lights also tend to have more UV output, which makes them more painful at night. Yellower lights lean towards the red end and aren’t so jarring for the same brightness. Bluer lights get used in hospital, lab, and other high-detail settings for more clarity, while yellower lights get used in more relaxed environments where visual detail is less important.
I wouldn’t guess you have a different cone count, but I would guess there’s some underlying perceptions about colors and visuals.
No, most of the places I notice my aversion to yellow light have pretty neutral colours; off-whites, greys, the occasional green. I haven’t looked into it, but I would say the yellow lights (at least the ones that bother me) distort the colours more. I have no idea when the Colour Rendering Index of them are, just that they seem much hasher. Maybe yellow lights are more tolerable to most people, so they install more? Yellow lights aren’t rated for higher power though. Maybe it’s purely the colour temperature, maybe it has to do with sun exposure and cloudy days?
Just the CRI wouldn’t explain why some people find the addition of artificial light unnecessary at best while others seem to need it to see. There’s probably some amount learned perception going on, but I don’t think you can learn to be blind to certain light, can you?
There’s certainly a tipping point where light becomes too yellow to accurately represent color. I was recently shopping bathroom vanities and some showed what the greens and blues would look like under different color temps, with 2700K just about ruining the appearance. I also painted a room in light blues and had to change the adjustable lights to 3500K, if I remember correctly.
I’m just intrigued and thinking out loud. I’m having a hard time describing yellower as harsh. I could see the overhead lights doing a better job at flooding an area and minimizing shadows, whereas window light would be diffused but still somewhat of a point-source depending on distance. The “backrooms” image of the empty office space certainly comes to mind where it’s all a vague shade of yellow-green.
As far as people who can’t seem to see anything under wandering daylight, IME, they tend to be a mix of people who are either older (reduced dark vision, reduced focus) and impatient people (who don’t understand your eyes take 5 seconds to adjust pupil size but 20 minutes to refill rhodopsin, your night vision juice). Or just people who demand conformity. Or a 4th group I suppose, who have max-brightness screens that doesn’t play with eyes well against dark backgrounds. I do personally prefer natural light and wait for my eyes to prove they can’t see enough before using lights, except for when I have physical tasks to do like cook or repair something.
Apologies for seeming like I was telling you you’re wrong. I was trying to get your perspective but just rambled in my own opinions. Lights are a notable hobby for me, sort of. Headlights, flashlights, night lights, street lights, light pollution, night sight, neon lights, uv lights… I read up on lights weirdly often.
Oh, no problems! Colour rendering isn’t an angle I’d thought of yet, and clashing colours is definitely something I’ll think aboit next time.
I do have to wonder if my aversion is learned, as I am very much not a morning person, so waking up by strong sunlight or room light are both negative experiences. I’m also a big fan of rainy days, and I wonder how much the light colours play into that and how.
There are individual differences in color perception.
Office blue light might be because blue light stimulates while red/yellow makes tired. But main reason is probably that neon tubes still are cheaper per square meter. Btw, selling them is now forbidden in europe, they are LED tubes now.
The California Community College I went to allowed you to filter classes in the schedule by whether they offered ZTC - Zero Textbook Cost or OER - Open Educational Resource.
memes
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.