Mossy Feathers (They/Them)

Probably icbm tech or something, it’s pretty much all they have left.

This. If I’m not mistaken, the system was meant to operate like a hybrid between patents and trademarks. Iirc, things weren’t originally under copyright by default and you had to regularly renew your copyright in order to keep it. Most of the media in the public domain is a result of companies failing to properly claim or renew copyright before the laws were changed. My understanding is that the reason for this was because the intent was to protect you from having your IP stolen while it was profitable to you, but then release said IP into the public domain once it was no longer profitable (aka wasn’t worth renewing copyright on).

Then corpos spent a lot of money rewriting the system and now practically everything even remotely creative is under copyright that’s effectively indefinite.

In a written statement, the ADL said the decision by Wikipedia was the result of a ”campaign to delegitimize the ADL” and that editors opposing the ban “provided point by point refutations, grounded in factual citations, to every claim made, but apparently facts no longer matter.”

You of all groups should know that the last part of your statement is a common right-wing dog whistle that gets used when someone doubles down after their “facts” get rejected for bigotry and/or inaccuracy. By using that phrase, you’ve automatically cast doubt on the legitimacy of your actions and statements. At best you’re ignorant of a common dog whistle, which is embarrassing for an organization who should be well-versed in this kind of thing; at worst you’ve signaled to everyone that you’re potentially peddling “alternative facts”, which casts doubt on everything you’ve done in the past. Either way, you’re ultimately hurting the Jewish people by making that kind of statement.

Mira Sucharov, a professor of political science at Carleton University, said Wikipedia’s decision represents a major opportunity to reflect on why the ADL is facing scrutiny and rethink communal approaches for fighting antisemitism.

“This is a sign that the Jewish community needs better institutions,” she said.

They really do, and I feel bad for them. The places that should be defending them seem more than happy to ignore them or even throw them under the bus in the name of Zionism.

Like, okay, personal beliefs on Zionism aside, if your organization is tasked with defending a group of people, you should ensure your actions aren’t going to endanger, delegitimize or otherwise encourage bigotry against said group. That means that even if you’re a Zionist Jewish organization, if your task is to fight against bigotry towards Jews, you shouldn’t be ignoring non-Zionist Jews nor should you be dismissing their views. Instead, you should be listening to what they have to say, condensing it and releasing it in an manner easy for non-jews to understand (which means providing political, historical and religious context, because many people, myself included, don’t understand as much as they think they do about Judaism).

In the current context, you should be giving people statements from Zionist and non-Zionist Jews about Palestine, and attempt to include non-biased historical, religious and political backgrounds for events that are occurring.

I think ethnically Jewish people could make an honest argument that they should have some portion of Palestine based on historical origins (I think it’s a weak arguement, but I think you could argue for it). However, that doesn’t excuse the way that the IDF and Israeli government have treated Gaza and the West Bank.

You can criticize the Israeli government while also believing that ethnically Jewish people should be able to have a country they have control over. Other countries do this all the time (get criticized for poor treatment of the “outside” ethnic group(s)), why is this somehow different for Israel? Why aren’t we allowed to criticize Israel? I can talk about how France, a white, French ethnostate, is mistreating Muslims without being a racist bigot; I should be able to talk about Israel the same way.

My biggest complaint about Sims-likes is that the visual style always looks too serious. It gives me the feeling that whatever I’m going to do with my not-Sims, it’s gonna be something that makes me regret my real life.

You wanna know what I did the last time I played the Sims 2 though? I repeatedly held parties at my Sim’s house and then lured the guests into a room they couldn’t get out of. I also used the moveobjects cheat to collect police cars whenever a cop showed up to shut the party down. By the time I was done I had amassed around 70 urns, many hysterical immortal Sims (Sims with households can’t die while visiting someone’s house in the Sims 2), 4 Police cars and a fire truck.

The Sims has a mischievous air to it that tickles the devil on your shoulder and begs you to listen to them. None of the Sims-likes I’m aware of seem to have the same air.

Edit: now I want to play the Sims again.

The sea is literally right there. C’mon.

No. It’s easier to go after the “good guys” than the bad guys because they’re easier to beat. They won’t use all kinds of slimy, underhanded tactics to fuck you over.

Edit: I don’t approve of the lawsuit against valve, but that’s the way of the world. Scummy companies and people have many tools they can use to drag you down to their level.

deleted by creator

The alternative explanation is that the employers have investments in corporate real estate and don’t want their investments to lose value. Personally, I think that the the people at the top probably have investments in corporate real estate, while middle managers are the way you describe.

I don’t think the people at the top usually care what the employees are doing so long as they’re making money, and being in the office means they’re keeping corporate real estate prices afloat. As such, being in office makes money for the executives, even if that money isn’t made directly through the company.

Middle managers on the other hand, likely don’t have any significant corporate real estate investments, nor are they as likely get significant bonuses for company productivity. As such, it makes more sense for their motive to be more about control than it is money.

That said, I do know some executives do indeed see employees the way you’ve described them; an infamous example comes to mind about the Australian real estate executive talking about how they needed to bring workers to heel and crash the economy to remind workers that they work for the company and not the other way around. I’m just not sure that many executives actually think about their workers in that much depth. I think if they did then we’d see a stark contrast of very ethical companies and highly abusive companies instead of the mix of workplace cultures we have now; because some ceos would come to the conclusion that a happy worker is a good worker, while others would become complete control freaks.

That chart kinda confuses me.

For one thing, I feel like cars shouldn’t be included because that’s people being idiots in cars. I guess if the park is designed in such a way that cars can be a real hazard (like trails that cross roads), then it would make the park more dangerous, but idk; seems weird to include them when people get run over all the time, regardless of whether they’re in a national park or not.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that it’s not a hazard unique to the area, so unless the park is poorly designed in a way that notibly amplifies the danger of vehicles, it probably shouldn’t be included.

(Edit: I just realized it’s also counting suicides as well, which again, people can commit suicide anywhere, why is it being counted against the park?)

Another is that there are multiple “dangerous” parks that have few or no fatalities, and very few SAR operations. I know it’s based on per million visitors, but when you have less than 5~10 of each, then to me that’s a fluke. The park could be extremely safe and had a visitor group or family that did something dumbfoundingly stupid and got themselves lost or killed.

If I understand the chart, it looks like the SAR is per million in 2023, while the fatalities is per million is over the 2007-2023 period. The former is more reasonable when considering that the listed visitor count is for 2023, but fatalities per million is going to get fucky when you have less than a million visitors and it’s over a 16yr period. It’d be more reasonable to either list fatalities per million for 2023, or use the average visitor count and SAR incidents per million over the 2007-2023 period.

It’s an interesting chart, but I think the methodology might be flawed. I’m curious if anyone else feels the same way.

Oh my god, wallet chains are going to make a comeback, but for phones this time.

I’m not familiar with a lot of these, but isn’t Robocop technically not AI? I thought he still had a human brain, which was the entire point of turning cops into cyborgs instead of making androids from scratch.

Also, while I’m happy to see that they included The Machine from Person of Interest, I’m a little disappointed they didn’t include her antagonist, Samaritan. It’s a shame that series ended up getting a rushed ending, it was really good up until that point. It was still pretty decent, just kinda… well, rushed.

I’m really hoping valve does a public steamdeck OS release. I’d like to replace windows on my PC with Linux and have windows as a backup, but the Linux distro I’m the most familiar with is the steam deck’s distro, and that’s not available outside of steam decks yet.

That thing is awesome. I kinda want one.

Does anyone know what that laptop is?

Team Fortress 2

Cruelty Squad (okay, the game is only a couple years old, but the art style is so intentionally shit that I just can’t see it aging at all)

Jet Set Radio, Jet Set Radio Future, and (I predict) Bomb Rush Cyberfunk. BRC also is only a couple years old, but it shares the same style as JSR(F), which has aged very well.

Minecraft

Doom and Doom II (just remember to turn off texture filtering, or set it to nearest neighbor).

The Sims. No, really, I think The Sims games have all aged very, very well. Some better than others, but I feel like each one of them has a visual style that still works today.

Hylics 1/2

Half Life 1

Myst

Jet Set Radio Future

Bomb Rush Cyberfunk

Factorio

Doom II (heavily modded)

OpenRCT2

Voices of the Void

The Sims (I like the series as a whole, I feel like each game has its own pros and cons)

That would be an amazing marketing campaign. They’d lose money on it, but it’d be awesome.

Time Cube

Edit: Archived site

Another version

Edit 2: y’all taking the low hanging fruit when y’all know time cube is the most unhinged. If you don’t know about how the earth has four simultaneous 24hr days duirng one rotation in sixteen space-times then I don’t know what to tell you.

I want them to make the Sims 4 feel more chaotic. I’ve been playing the Sims 2 lately and weird shit just kinda happens all the time, either because of relatively harmless bugs that never got fixed or the amount of autonomy that Sims have (edit: or the fact that I recently discovered you can use the moveobjects cheat to place Sims on top of Sims, and if you do it right then they seem to get permanently attached to another Sim). The Sims 4 just feels weirdly flat or something in comparison. It just isn’t as interesting for some reason, and I think it’s just not as chaotic and seemingly determined to derail whatever plans you had for your sim.

Edit: also, something tells me that Project Rene isn’t replacing the Sims 4, and it’s going to be The Sims Online 2 or something. Ironic considering the issues with the Sims 4 mainly stem from it originally being “The Sims Online 2” but then getting hastily turned into a main line Sims game.

Anyway, I bet they’re doing all the bug fixes and performance improvements because EA has made it clear that they’re going to be stuck developing for The Sims 4 for another +5yrs. So now they’re trying to clean everything up so they can keep developing it.

…which is why cruelty is the point. They’re getting pleasure out of hurting others. Their pleasure from torment might not be the “true” motivator - I highly doubt the people making these decisions are cackling to themselves like a comic book supervillain while coming up with novel ways of hurting people (though their brainwashed underlings might) - but they get pleasure from power and control, and are willing to pursue it at all cost, which means they do things that are cruel in order to maintain it.

To put it simply, they get pleasure from power and control, which comes at the cost of hurting others. The result is that while cruelty might not literally be the point, cruelty is the end result.