kartoffelsaft

@kartoffelsaft@programming.dev

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨New Lemmy meta just dropped..⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  I’m pretty sure that form of meta doesn’t actually have anything to do with the prefix/adjective. In games it’s just an acronym for “most effective tactic available” i.e. in your example the first strategy would be called “the meta” until the second one came along.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Is it normal for people to ask where you are from online?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  American/Sign/Language.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Human rice cooker⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  Image

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Cities Skylines 2, Kerbal Space 2, Planet Coaster 2, Frostpunk 2... What Went Wrong?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I believe the reason it happened, in short, is that Take2 (the publisher) were really obsessed with the release being a surprise, at the cost of far too much.

  For one, this meant that basically every job listing for the game never described what the game you’d even work on was. Most of the devs they got were juniors who:

  1. were willing to sign more restrictive contracts without the confidence to push back
  2. did not necessarily know much about the game, or even the genre (supposedly, besides Nate, only 1 dev was an active KSP1 player and another was aware of the game but never really played)
  3. this game was their first sizeable project

  For two, it meant that a lot of management roles were taken up by people from Take2 to enforce the secrecy (who also saw KSP as having franchise potential, but that’s a rant for another day). Few of them intimately understood what makes us dorky nerds enthusiastic about KSP.

  This is also part of the reason they avoided talking to the KSP1 devs; they were afraid of some of them even hinting that a sequel was in the works. As to why they continued to not talk to them after announcing the game I’m not sure. Perhaps they were afraid they’d tell the uncomfortable truth that the game was making the same development mistakes as KSP1 and more.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨hmmm⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Image

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Is American politics really as seemingly satirical of itself as it is portrayed?⁩ ⁨⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I’ve seen the occasional post here on lemmy making this point. I don’t see anything factually wrong in saying she’d likely keep status quo or even make it worse. But when I see this said the one thing that I always wonder is never addressed:

  How would the outcome be better if you voted against her?

  Like, I have to imagine that someone making this argument thinks Trump would improve the situation. Because if that isn’t the case, then this is not a decision I’m making at the voting booth, so saying she’d continue genocide as a reason to vote against her falls flat (and, if you’re wondering, is why people are quick to downvote this argument). Is the hope that Trump will see the artillery shells sent to isreal as “librul policy” and axe it on that basis? Or that he’ll do such a bad job that he’ll get assassinated/arrested/overthrown? Something else entirely?

  Enlighten me, because I can’t envision Trump making anything better.