kryptonianCodeMonkey
@kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
- Comment on Hogwarts Legacy Official Mod Support Confirmed For This Week 2 days ago:
Yes, and you can’t divorce the fact that she profits from all official media associated with the Harry Potter and paying for said media inescapable enriches her more. However, it is also true that the team that made this game did an amazing job of a creating a hogwarts/ Wizarding world that feels real and amazing, that they do not support her bigotry, and that included a non-token well-respected open trans character who gets to share her story as part of the main quest line of the game. Supporting the game is not, in itself, support of trans bigotry. It’s complicated.
- Comment on New delivery 3 weeks ago:
That’s cuz she’s the whole package. Cute, fluffy, lazy, and roughly box shaped. The whole package.
- Comment on I never realized this 4 weeks ago:
I didn’t mock it. The meme did.
- Comment on I never realized this 4 weeks ago:
Sure. It would be personally meaningful. Changing your name is always meaningful, I would hope. But it is not contributing to the the dismantling of the patriarchal norms. Not every action has to be, of course. But the conceit of this post is implied to be that her intention was just that, a rejection of patriarchal naming conventions. If that was her intention, it was misguided and failed to achieve that goal.
- Comment on I never realized this 4 weeks ago:
The context of the meme implied she was doing it because she’s a feminist and that taking her mother’s name was somehow an expression of that. Of course she can do that, but it isn’t achieving anything if that was the goal
- Comment on I never realized this 4 weeks ago:
Wasn’t my post, just advocating for OP
- Comment on I never realized this 4 weeks ago:
Yeah… it can be interpreted that way. But even as a feminist myself, it is a dumb performative sort of protest. Paternal surnames are the least important fixtures of our patriarchal society, and, unless it was created wholecloth, there are no surnames that aren’t patriarchal historical lyrics, as the meme points out.
- Comment on I never realized this 4 weeks ago:
cough en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lee_Hooker cough
- Comment on What do people (as in, IRL) actually think of the [alleged] perpetrator involved in the NYC shooting? 1 month ago:
… said the prosecutor reading the defendents online statements to the court.
- Comment on What do people (as in, IRL) actually think of the [alleged] perpetrator involved in the NYC shooting? 1 month ago:
I don’t really want to discuss this IRL since I’m a bit paranoid of mass surveillance and getting my voice recorded saying anything anti-establishment could put a target on my back
Wait till you find out the CIA can read…
- Comment on Assassin's Creed Shadows to Feature Denuvo & Mandatory Ubisoft Account Linking 1 month ago:
Stretching the definition of “feature”
- Comment on USA President term limits 2 months ago:
Honestly, I would be very surprised if he were disallowed. Not only because, as you said, it is unclear if the 12th amendment eligibility conditions apply to conditions added after the 12th amendment and make no reference to modifying it. But also because the 22nd amendment does not, in fact, specify that someone who has served two terms is ineligible to be President. Rather it is very specifically a condition about being elected to president. If we’re interpreting the constitution strictly literally, the 22nd amendment doesn’t make a new condition for eligibility to be President, only for being elected president. So the 12th amendment would not apply. That may not have been the intent, but if anyone thinks the same Supreme Court that ruled that the President hadls absolute immunity on the use of his presidential powers isn’t going to let Trump slide right through that loophole… well, you could probably convince them it was raining as you piss on their leg.
- Comment on USA President term limits 2 months ago:
The two term limit was set by the 22nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The language in it is that no person may be elected to the office of President for more than two terms. It does not specify any criteria about consecutive terms, meaning it doesn’t matter. They simply can’t be elected more than twice to the office President under any conditions. It also specifies that of they served more than two years as pedicab when they weren’t elected to that office (such as when a VP assumes the office after the President dies), they can’t be elected to the office of President more than once. In other words, 2+ year term of a president after succeeding the previous president whose term ends early, counts as a full term in regard to this 2 term limit.
- Comment on Hummingbird Moths 2 months ago:
Also like shrimp to fairies
- Comment on This feels wrong. I love it. 2 months ago:
Imaginary numbers always feel wrong
- Comment on Lemmy should have a community called lemmy_guess 2 months ago:
So cool it hurts, apparently?
- Comment on US judge says Google must open Android phones to rival app stores 3 months ago:
It wouldn’t be such a problem if it was just about quality control. But the app stores pocket big bucks from the apps you download, including a large cut of subscriptions to services entirely unrelated to the store just because you downloaded the app through them. If I recall, Google takes something like 20 percent and some takes something like 30 (I can’t recall the exact numbers, just that Apple is marginally worse about it).
For example, I love Dropout, a comedy media platform from the former people at College Humor. They offer a $5.99/month subscription for access to their entire catalog. If I went to their website, created an account and bought a subscription, that is $5.99 directly into the hands of the creators I wish to support. I can also then go download the app and enjoy the same service throught thag account on my phone or other devices.
However, if I go to the app store, download the app, and buy my subscription in it, Dropout now has to pay Google or Apple a sizable chunk of that $5.99. And not just for that month. For every month that follows for the life of that subscription. Just for the benefit of having an app available to users on devices that hold monopolies on these services.
You might be thinking, well, they could just raise the price for the subscriptions when you sign up through the app to offset the extra if i recall correctly. You wowould think that, but no. If I recall correctly, Apple and Google both also require apps to sell subscriptions at the same price as they would be sold outside the apps. If you don’t comply with that, they’ll drop youyour app altogether. That means that everyone has to pay more, whether you got your subscription through the app or not, to offset those extra costs.
There are many other problems, including anti-competitive/antitrust practices, and ironically, shitty quality control. But such things are inevitable with monopolies.
- Comment on Avatar: The Last Airbender Is Getting a AAA RPG With Saber Interactive and Paramount Game Studios - EXCLUSIVE 3 months ago:
It’s kind of hard to have an incredibly varied and versatile powerset in a video game, simply becuase you have a limited set of inputs. So you would normally have a small set of powers that each serve a purpose. But then doing that and still representing 4 elements means each only gets very limited options.
Thinking about it, I can see two ways to make bebending feel powerful, versatile and give a good representation to all elements. 1) maybe the best solution would be to have customizable load outs with various bending powers, and let you switch between those load outs on the fly so you can coordinate a few power sets that work well together but swap them when other sets are more useful to the situation. 2) An interesting idea would be to use situational awareness to execute moves without specific user inputs. For example, you could have a single boost button that uses a different element depending on if the player is on land, water, in the air or dodging (fire rocket!). And you could have a close/melee attack and ranged attack for each element that you can specify, but the exact effect/attack it creates can vary depending on the environment and enemy type of the target. Let it feel a little bit like the character is making decisions, not just you, like Batman in combat in the Arkham games. And of course, there would be a charge up to a special attack that uses the Avatar state and all 4 elements at once.
- Submitted 3 months ago to showerthoughts@lemmy.world | 13 comments
- Comment on If simulation is possible, we could upgrade reality to 4D 4 months ago:
If there were a 4th spatial dimension and you could see in 4 dimensions, yes, you could see the inside of some things that are enclosed in 3 dimensions. It wouldn’t be like x-ray vision exactly though. Think about a sphere in 3d. It is enclosed. When you take 2d projections of the sphere by slicing cross-sections of the ball, from a 2d observer on that plane, they would also see an enclosed circular object. But from the 3rd dimensional observer looking down at that cross section they can see everything enclosed in the circle. From the 4th dimension, then it stands to reason they would have a similar view of a 3 dimensional objects innards. But rather than seeing through the object like in an x-ray, they just see the whole thing laid out in every detail at once like we see the insides of the 2d circle.
- Comment on If simulation is possible, we could upgrade reality to 4D 4 months ago:
I disagree. I think we are very much hardwired to innately understand 3d space in an intuitive level. All else about higher and lower dimensions is learned experientially and/or academically, and it’s near impossible not to understand it in terms that relate to 3 dimensions or math. I also think that thinking about 4 dimensions in relation to 3 dimensions makes it impossible to truly understand 4 dimensional space as a whole. We can describe every detail of our mathematically, but still not be able up visualize it in whole. Regardless, given the fact that there is no 4th spatial dimension, I doubt either of us will ever have a definitive answer.
- Comment on If simulation is possible, we could upgrade reality to 4D 4 months ago:
I’ve read it. Recently actually. It is really cool. It kind of supports my point though. It’s hard for those to both comprehend and describe that have been in higher dimensional spaces and much of what they do describe is in 3 dimensional terms, (enclosed spaces being visible as if by an open top being a good example of trying to comprehend a thing that would be uncomprehendable in 4d through a 3d mindset). Of course, it’s also written by an author that hasn’t actually experienced such things and is also trying to imagine what it would be like to experience his interpretation of the phenomenon, so… not exactly conclusive either way.
- Comment on If simulation is possible, we could upgrade reality to 4D 4 months ago:
Interact with, yes. Process and perceive it as it truly is? I don’t believe so, no.
- Comment on If simulation is possible, we could upgrade reality to 4D 4 months ago:
You are correct that 4d toys (and other games) already simulate 4 spatial dimensions. But those games all display the 4th dimensional space from a 3 dimensional projection. I think what OP is suggesting is creating a game that displays an actual 4 spatial dimensions. I have argued in another comment that I don’t think this is possible in a way that our brains could ever percieve or process due to the limitations of a brain evolved in 3 spatial dimensions.
- Comment on If simulation is possible, we could upgrade reality to 4D 4 months ago:
For clarity the word is perpendicularity. A 4th spatial dimension would have to be perpendicular to all 3 other spatial dimensions.
- Comment on If simulation is possible, we could upgrade reality to 4D 4 months ago:
There’s nothing technically stopping us from simulating 4 spatial dimensions now. In fact, there are several games that utilize a 4th dimension in their gameplay. Here’s 8 examples. The problem is that our brains evolved in 3 spatial dimensions and, even if we can conceive of, define the nature of, and to some degree even indirectly imagine a 4th spacial dimension, our brains are hardwired to think in 3 dimensions and our understanding of a 4th spatial dimension can only be in 3 dimensional terms. The software of our brains, and the hardware of our eyes are simply incapable of perceiving and processing a 4th spatial dimension as it truly is. It would always be filtered through the lens of 3 spatial dimensions, projected into a 3 dimensional form that we can understand.
For a good example of this limitation, we regularly show 3 dimensions in film, tv, animations, video games, etc. projected on 2 dimensional surfaces. We can interpret those 2 dimensional images into an understanding of the 3 dimensional spaces being projected, but A) we do not actually perceived them as 3d. We still only see height and width. Depth is imagined largely based on perceived scale and parallax oocclusion. and B) we are only able to see the 3 dimensional space in our minds because that is how our minds always perceive space. In order to make those 2 dimensional images seem actually 3 dimensional, we have to project different 2 dimensional images to each eye with precise focal lengths and angles to mimic our actual eyesight in 3 dimensional space. Only with that stereoscopic view do we actually see 3 dimensionality with actual depth. Now, with that understanding, that it takes 2 projections in 2d to trick our minds into seeing 3d, how would you trick our perception into seeing 4d? How to we make either our eyes or our brains see whatever the 4th dimensional direction is called? A 3rd eye? No, plenty of animals have more than 3 eyes or even compound eyes, and so only precise 3d. We have to perceive a direction perpendicular to height, width, and depth that does not actually exist. How would you achieve that goal?
I don’t think that is actually possible. I think, like those games in the link, even in a simulation we are stuck playing with the 4th dimension via its interaction with and projection onto 3 dimensions because our brains cannot truly process what a 4th spatial dimension would even be.
- Comment on Would you consider making a sandwich to be "cooking?" 4 months ago:
You can cook in a microwave. But those frozen meals and rice packs are already cooked, you’re just reheating/reconstituting them. I wouldn’t conconsider that cooking, no.
- Comment on Would you consider making a sandwich to be "cooking?" 4 months ago:
Cooked
- Comment on Would you consider making a sandwich to be "cooking?" 4 months ago:
Slap a whole fish down in front of you.
You: “Not cooked”
slice filled of fish off and present it.
You: “Not cooked”
slice filled into small bite size pieces and squirter some neon green horseradish next to it
You: “Dis is cooked!”
?
- Comment on Would you consider making a sandwich to be "cooking?" 4 months ago:
Ceviche is said to be “cooked” with acid, even if that’s not the most accurate term. And most forms of sushi are made with cooked rice, at miminimum, and not uncommonly with other cooked ingredients. So those things kind of muddy the waters for your point. But a clearer example may be something like beef tartare, a garden salad with a vinegarette, or sashimi. Those things are “prepared”, not cooked, because no cooking is involved in their making. Cooking is specifically the preparation of food utilizing heat. Chefs prepare plenty of dishes that do not involve the act of cooking.