Internet Addict. Reddit refugee. Motorsports Enthusiast. Gamer. Traveler. Napper.
He/Him.
Also @JCPhoenix@lemmy.world. @jcphoenix@mastodo.neoliber.al
I’m about halfway through FP1 (I have the DLC). I want to go back and finish it, but like you said, it just kicks the shit out of you. It’s legitimately stressful for me to play it, so I’ve kinda been like “Ehhh…do I really wanna play right now?”
But I am hoping to eventually complete it. Because FP2 does look interesting.
Late to the party, but I finally picked up Helldivers 2. My friends have had it since it came out, but I was being the “hipster gamer” and didn’t get the popular game. Plus, our group has a tendency to do “flavor of the week”/FOMO gaming, where 1 or 2 people buy a new game, convince/guilt trip others into buying the game, we all spend $30-50 on it, play it for like 2 days, then never touch it again. So I was hesitant to get it, lest I get burned again (a la Starfield). Lastly, I’m also not a huge shooter player.
But I wanted to played with the boys, and they were playing it again recently, so I picked it up. And I’m glad I did. Because it’s fun. Stupid fun even. Which is right up our alley. Already put 20hrs in over the last week.
The mechanics are simple. The missions are straightforward. And I like that it’s a pickup/putdown game. Play a 20-40min round, then come back later or tomorrow. It’s not like we’re playing hours on end, which is great. We’ll play a match or two, then maybe do another before we start signing-off for the night.
Something tells me that Amanda doesn’t know wtf she’s talking about. Just making it seem more scary than it is, in hope of scaring people straight.
As a recently former Kansas Citian, it is odd that this robot is here. As the article says:
We hear every week these days about more businesses being vandalized or robbed in Kansas City, but when you look at the latest crime map by KCPD, it shows no illegal activity reported at this shopping center.
This part of the metro, in Raytown, doesn’t strike me as an area that’s high/higher crime. It’s a pretty busy area. I’ve passed through this part of town many times night or day. Shopped in this area from time to time; never thought it was unsafe, since it’s a rather suburban area (not saying the city areas are inherently more dangerous; I lived in KC proper).
I had a Sega GameGear as a kid. Yeah it was a Sega system, which Sega was major back then, but the GameGear was nothing compared to the Gameboy. Very cool system, in that it had a full color screen and was backlit.
Now that was at the expense of being heavy as all hell and a monster eater of AA batteries. 6 of them at at time!
I think that was basically the only non-major system I had.
My first DS was the DS Lite. I bought it when the game “Contact” came out. Played various JRPGs on it, as I’m wont to do with handhelds. IIRC, the DS Lite was backwards compatible with GBA carts, which was great. I loved the look, feel, and size of it. Honestly, DS Lite is probably my favorite Nintendo handheld, with the Switch a close second.
After that, I think the next DS that I had was the 3DS. Which I still have; I even booted it up earlier this year to try to play “Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney – Spirit of Justice.” I didn’t end up playing it on the 3DS, since I have that anthology on Steam, but I wanted to see where I was.
Games or series that I played a lot on the DS line were practically all of the mainline Ace Attorney games, and even some of the spin offs like the Professor Layton crossover and AA:Investigations. Fire Emblem was another. I think I played Awakening, Fates, and Echoes. I played at least one Pokemon game, too.
Huh didn’t know P1 and P2 were SMT games. Good to know. I’ve tried at least one entry in the SMT side and just could not get into it. Don’t even remember which it was. I get they’re both dungeon crawlers, but I don’t think I’m a fan of the more old-school SMT-style games.
I’ve only played P3 Portable and Persona 4, on PSP and Vita respectively (though I also have these on Steam now). I have Persona 5 (also Steam), but I’ve yet to start it, since I have quite the backlog to get through. Including P3 and P4!
I got fairly far into P3P before stopping, while I didn’t get as far into P4 before stopping, then restarting, then stopping again (though I got a little further than the first time). My last attempt must’ve been during the pandemic, so not that long ago. It’s not necessarily that I didn’t enjoy them; I just have a thing with JRPGs where I intend to take a short break…which often turns into years-long breaks.
P3P was more enjoyable than P4, IMO. P4 just seemed really slow at the start, while P3, I felt had much better pacing. If I’m remembering the correctly, the latter just dropped you straight in to the weirdness, and it just kept going, where I felt like P4 had more lulls in the action.
I don’t mind the school stuff, though I’ll admit it’s not my favorite thing in the world. I do try to make an effort, rather than just breeze through it. I do hope to one day complete both of them and then get to P5. I very much enjoy their visual styles and music. I also like games that take place in the modern world, so the series is right up my alley.
For something like Civ or Stellaris, I’d count “completion” once I’ve won at least one game. Because, ideally, I’ve shown some mastery of knowledge, skills, and mechanics that allowed me to win. I don’t need to play and win as each leader in Civ or every race/trait and combo in Stellaris to say I’ve completed it.
This is similar to how I’d view “completion” in open-ended games like Cities:Skylines or Banished. Having played a city or town for several hours, was I able to keep the residents alive, stabilize the city if there were any issues, and also grow and develop the settlement for a significant, though arbitrary, length of in-game time? If the answer is Yes to all of these, then I’ve “completed” the game. I’ve understood how things work in the game. Doesn’t mean I have to understand every nuance or know every little trick. But I know enough that things are going well and largely continue to go well. And every time I start a new map, things tend to always go well.
Earlier this year, I stopped playing Eve Online for the nth time after mostly playing straight through since 2019. Because I viewed my time during this last 4-5yr stint as “complete.” I achieved practically all the goals I set out to do: join a major alliance, join massive PVP fights, engage in smaller PVP fights, make money that I ever had before, buy and fly ships I’d never used before, learn how to explore and navigate wormholes, try out specific types of industry, play with IRL friends, own and run my/our own station, and more.
In all of these, “completion” obviously doesn’t mean I’ll never go back. There’s always more to do, new things to see. But for now, I am satisfied with my progress, experience, and understanding. I’m no longer a noob.
The date of the symposium, by the way, is the anniversary of the signing of the Great Barrington Declaration. It’s also Rosh Hashanah, one of the High Holy Days of the Jewish calendar. Stanford says the “overlap” with the holiday is regrettable, but it hasn’t offered to reschedule.
Admittedly, I don’t know much about of Judaism, but this seemed out of place. What’s the significance of the signing of this declaration and start of the conference, with this holiday? That it’d be like the equivalent of hosting a conference on Christmas or Eid or something?
While I understand the needs for “academic freedom,” the author is right:
No university claims to be open to the expression of any or all views, no matter how unorthodox or counterfactual; they make judgments about the propriety of viewpoints all the time; the level of discernment they practice is one way we judge them as serious educational establishments.
It’s one thing to have heterodox views, perhaps because we don’t yet fully understand something. But at this point in the pandemic, and what we know from past pandemics, this whole intentional widespread infection leading to herd immunity idea made no sense. It was misinformation during the height of the pandemic and it’s still misinformation now.
Stanford should’ve said “No,” and made these quacks have their conference at the local Super 8 hotel.
I think the point is that even with caps on spending, it’s still possible for people to fall into a financial hole. Even just looking at the prescription proposal, $2000 may not be a lot for some, but for others, that’s a good chunk of change. And is that $2000 per person? Is there a limit for a family? Because if not, for a family of 4, $8000 is a lot.
And of course, this doesn’t address the medical procedures themselves.
I’m explaining the other person’s position as I’ve read it. To me, any step in the right direction, even if small, is a good thing. But I could see why others would be like “Come on, stop beating around the bush, M4A already!”
I thought alcoholism would be it. And someone would be at least making money off it (sans bootlegging).
We’re being flippant, but god, what a waste of human potential. Absolutely pointless war.
You’re on Beehaw right now. Let’s not sling around any accusations. Let’s just assume good faith. Even I didn’t catch that when I responded.
While BLM is certainly within their right to ask for this, I think it’d be pointless to do it. It’s done. Kamala Harris is the nominee.
To me, this is once again, the left fighting the left. And yes, the Democratic Party in this country, is considered part of the left, even if it’s not as left as some of you you’d like. Maybe BLM and other groups who feel the same, should focus that energy on fighting MAGA and Trump. Only one of the two major parties has at least some interest in racial justice and equality. And it sure as hell ain’t the Republicans. Especially not these days.
I’m not saying Democrats are perfect. I’m not saying Kamala Harris is perfect. But I’d much, much, much, much rather have her and Walz and Democrats across the land in control. And trying to fight fights within the big tent that have already been settled isn’t the way to do it.
Jim Withers, who coined the term “street medicine” decades ago and cares for homeless people in Pittsburgh, welcomed the entry of more providers given the enormous need. But he cautioned against a model with financial motives.
“I do worry about the corporatization of street medicine and capitalism invading what we’ve been building, largely as a social justice mission outside of the traditional health care system,” he said. “But nobody owns the streets, and we have to figure out how to play nice together.”
While I don’t hate anything that helps people, and I’m not as anti-capitalist as some in this community, I wondered about this too. While it’s great that a business was able to see a market here and can profit while doing good, I too would be a little wary. So much (ie seemingly almost all of it) of US healthcare is already driven by for-profit motives. We all know that even having health insurance, private or otherwise, can still be insanely expensive.
I don’t know how Medicaid, Medicare, or California’s funding and regulations work. But I’d want to make sure that the unhoused receive good care and continue to receive good care. And that profits are kept to a reasonable level. Healthcare obviously has costs; it’s not cheap to provide. But I’d hate to see even more money gobbled-up and services to the unhoused decrease in quality/quantity because the profit-seeking side of the company demands more profit.
Late to the party. FWIW, I’m fine with the title for this post as well. I think @TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org has the right of it.
If you have issues in the future, please just report it. You can message us directly if for someone reason reports aren’t working. We have fairly active and attentive moderation here.
It is. Additionally, my co-worker who made the comment is like 33-34. I’m 37. Another person on the committee is 40. HR is like 64. So it’s not like we’re a bunch of young guns ourselves lol. We should want experience, and with experience tends to come age.
But yeah, I getcha on the management thing. I’m technically a manager, but I don’t have any subordinates. Because I told them, they’re going to have pay me way more to become an actual manager with direct reports, especially since I’d lose my non-exempt status. To make me exempt, they’d need to make it worth my while. We’re a non-profit, so we already get paid crap (though benefits are excellent).
My work is in the process of hiring someone to replace me since I’m headed to a new job. After a recent interview, a co-worker on the hiring committee made a comment on Teams, “His age seems OK.”
Uhhh, maybe we shouldn’t be talking about age in hiring decisions. Especially on a written medium. Pretty sure that in the US, age discrimination laws starts at like 40yo, including hiring and firing. That interviewee seemed to be over 40yo, which is probably what prompted that comment.
Not that I think the candidate will sue us if we don’t hire him, but it’s just unnecessary risk. And I don’t even work in HR or legal; rather I’m in IT. Surprised HR didn’t say anything about that comment.
I suspect Flash Mob is saying that as DOT Secy, Pete could do more. I’ll leave it at that; I’m not making any calls on Pete as DOT head.
But Flash also isn’t wrong that Pete has got the chops. Personally, I say just make him the spokesperson for everything. Anytime the GOP wants to say something stupid, let Pete respond and rebuke them.
EDIT: OK so this is actually more complicated than I thought. Parts of what I said originally are wrong. Sorry; let me see if I can correct this.
So that’s why these billionaires are asking for this now. Because Khan will probably remain in her chair role beyond the election, until she’s replaced. If Harris wins, Hoffman and Diller are expecting Harris and Dems to “make good on their purchase” and to select a new chair. Still ridiculous.
How easy is it for a president to remove a chair of the FTC? Decided to look into this.
FTC commissioners serve 7yr terms. Khan was only appointed and confirmed by the Senate in 2021. So she should be there until 2028, unless she resigns.
Additionally, the FTC is an independent regulatory agency (versus an independent executive agency). So it sorta exists “outside” of the executive branch. In terms of firing commissioners (chair or not), independent regulatory agencies commissioners can’t be fired at will:
Presidential attempts to remove independent agency officials have generated most of the important Supreme Court legal opinions in this area.[9] In 1935, the Supreme Court in the case of Humphrey’s Executor v. United States decided that although the president had the power to remove officials from agencies that were “an arm or an eye of the executive”, it upheld statutory limitations on the president’s power to remove officers of administrative bodies that performed quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial functions, such as the Federal Trade Commission.[1]: 142 Presidents normally do have the authority to remove regular executive agency heads at will, but they must meet the statutory requirements for removal of commissioners of independent agencies, such as demonstrating incapacity, neglect of duty, malfeasance, or other good cause.[10]
Source: Wikipedia.
So there is some due process there. The president can’t just demand a commissioner of these kinds of agencies, like the FTC, to resign. I guess, a president could technically demand it (as it happened in this case that got to SCOTUS), but the commissioner is under no obligation to follow through. I’m sure there are legal ways to pressure a commissioner into resigning, and a presidential administration could lie and claim one of those reasons for dismissal. But again, there’s at least due process. As far as resigning, Khan doesn’t strike me as a kind of person who’d just roll over, especially given who and what the FTC has been going after lately.
All that to say…it seems really stupid for Diller and Hoffman to demand this. Especially so publicly. Aside from the anti-consumer angles, it’s not even a slam dunk for a president to dismiss a sitting commissioner of an independent regulatory agency. Plus, this at a time when even Republicans seem to be turning on big business at times (though it’s hard to say what Republicans are for or against these days and with whom). Obviously, liberals and many Democrats have been shouting for more business regulation and consumer protections for years, decades, now. So the public is definitely on the side of, well, the public. So why do this so publicly?
I guess just typical billionaires thinking they can throw money around and expect things will happen how they want.
So I’ve played a fair amount of the Settler games, as well as the more recent Anno entries: 2070, 2205, and 1800. I find those games super micromanage-y, especially the Anno games. But not stressful. Like in Anno, you can just kinda keep things on autopilot, not doing very much, and things will be OK (though the AIs might start getting stronger).
Anyway, that’s a good take that Frostpunk is more of a puzzle game. I hadn’t considered that. If that’s the case, that might explain some of my, aversion. Because that parallels somewhat an experience I had with another game: Wargroove. I was looking at Wargroove as a TRPG/SRPG (akin to Fire Emblem or Final Fantasy Tactics), where I have wide latitude to execute my own strategies. So in Wargroove, I kept trying to do my own thing, but kept losing the level. It took me awhile to realize the game wanted me to complete the level its way, not my way. And that’s when I realized it was more of a puzzle game and less a strategy game. Which is weird, because I played Advance Wars as a kid. Though maybe it’s because I was a kid I didn’t realize it was a puzzle game at the time.
It might be with Frostpunk that I’m doing something similar. Expecting a colony manager, a la Banished, but not seeing the puzzle game aspect. I’m making those narrative decisions based on nothing logical. Rather emotional: “Oh these kids are gonna starve! I better do this instead of helping the workers!”
Thanks for this; this was helpful, for real!