Chebucto Regional Softball Club

Exactly! If Apple supported Vulkan, a lot of games would probably work well through Rosetta since they're more limited by rendering than CPU.

> x86 accelerator Why? Steam isn't all that heavy, so it should run just fine through Rosetta. The bigger problem is getting games to support macOS, which: - uses a different CPU arch in newer hw - uses a different graphics API - has very few users who want to play games - doesn't seem to reach out to game devs - can't be packaged into an interesting form factor (e.g. handheld PCs) It would make more sense for Valve to court mobile users than macOS.

Make them freeways and many of your problems go away.

Nice! I probably won't get this because I'm more of a mid tier customer and my 6650XT is still doing great. But competition with Nvidia is always good. But who knows, maybe I'll go nuts and get one anyway. They seem to be priced competitively.

This sounds right up my alley! In fact, I've been thinking of building something like this, but based in medieval Europe and with a few different play modes. This might just be the distraction I'm looking for to keep pushing that project off.

I always liked double pistols in Serious Sam. They had infinite ammo and felt pretty good to shoot.

Have fun, it's fantastic!

Yeah, that gun rocks. The magnum in Black Mesa is also pretty great, and probably based on the same feel.

And it's way better to take the riskier option. You wager 50 and get two options: - 70% chance of 100 gold - expected return = 35 gold - 30% chance of 250 gold - expected return = 170 gold They're rewarding gambling.

I grew up not being allowed to play with playing cards because of "the appearance of evil." My parents now use them, so I guess they got over it, but they still prefer other types of cards (e.g. Rook was our go-to). It's basically puritanical nonsense, yeah.

It's not even depicting gambling. You can't wager anything, and the only overlap with gambling is some terminology and that your scores are based on poker hands, which is based on rarity. The gameplay is basically Slay the Spire with scores instead of HP, and no choice of paths to take. In fact, I argue there's more gambling in StS because you can gamble your HP a bit to get a better chance at finding the right card depending on the path you choose. Balatro has nothing to do with gambling. Full stop.

But it is. There's nothing Linux devs can do if game/anticheat devs block Linux.

> Dollar value: zilch For me, yeah, I agree. For someone else, maybe they do have value. Achievements are a particularly stupid example because you can automate getting them, but my point is that digital things can have value. Maybe they're sentimental (I did a hard thing and this proves it), or maybe they're resellable (rare item in a game, which can be traded). Something physical that you value could have no value to someone else. Value is subjective. > Kinda weird to frame it with the non-aggression principle As a libertarian, that's generally how I frame things, because if I can't justify it under the NAP, it's probably me forcing my values on others. > Finding novel ways to manipulate customers is their job True, but isn't that true of pretty much everything if we zoom out enough? Politicians want to manipulate voters to get (re)elected, restaurants want to manipulate patrons to return, etc. We all have a selfish interest in getting others to do what we want. There has to be a line at which point self-interest is "wrong" to the extent that we should use government to regulate it. I use the NAP to reason about that point, others use some other (often subjective) metric. This same line of reasoning could be used to ban porn games, games with self-harm, or games critical of a government. Banning things is generally not what governments should be doing, they should practice restraint and only step in when someone's rights are violated or at risk of being violated.

> Games make you… care about… arbitrary worthless crap That's a super subjective take. One person's trash is another person's treasure. Who's to say your collection of beanie babies holds any more value than my collection of achievements in Steam? It's entirely subjective. > you’re actually fine with legal consequences for manipulative antipatterns Yes, because at a certain point, manipulation constitutes an initiation of force against a user. That point isn't "paid character respecs" though, but a consistent pattern of putting people under pressure so they have to make a decision before they can get complete information. If they allow refunds within a generous enough amount of time (i.e. if you drunkenly buy a bunch of cosmetics or something then request a refund when sober), then it's probably fine. However, I believe these types of rules should be set by court precedent, not legislatures, legislatures merely define broadly what constitutes "force" in a variety of contexts to give judges and juries something to build off of.

> letting people pay to keep up That's what I'm specifically giving an alternative to. If you're trying to discourage keeping up with the meta, you make it take long enough to adapt to the meta that you can patch out the meta.

Mostly the open world. III was a bit more influential with: - tiled graphics - party combat (Wizardry also had it) - time travel But each game from the Ultima series was additive, and Ultima also pulled from Akalabeth, so it's hard to pick a specific game to be "most influential." Is it Ultima I because it started the series that largely standardized CRPGs? Or is it Akalabeth because its success led to Ultima?

I think the notion of a "git gud" game largely came from Contra. Yes, the genre didn't last, but people crowding around the arcade machine translated to people making videos of themselves beating a hard game. It's a different kind of connection.

> And you are calling them morons, by consistently saying it’s a stupid decision. Saying a decision is stupid isn't the same as calling a person stupid, smart people do stupid things all the time. I'm saying something like "mouth feel" is a stupid reason to dramatically increase your risk of lung cancer, especially when vapes exist. People should be free to make stupid decisions. > Any sane definition of video games must conclude that they make you value objectively worthless arbitrary goals. That's unfair and you know it. [Video games can provide a lot of value](https://health.clevelandclinic.org/are-video-games-good-for-you). Yes there's trash out there, and that exists in every field. Look at people getting into CCGs like MtG, wine collecting (esp when [wine experts can't reliably tell "good" from "bad"](https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2011/10/you-are-not-so-smart-why-we-cant-tell-good-wine-from-bad/247240/)), or any other form of hobby with a high price ceiling. > How the fuck do you split hairs about these specific things, versus your libertarian insistence that only overt lying could possibly be wrong? It's about power imbalance. Scarcity in MP games (e.g. cosmetics) is completely artificial because the game files continue to include those products so you can see others wear them, so the only reason to stop selling them is to inflate their price. Can you truly make an informed decision under time pressure? No. The only reason for the scarcity is manipulation, hence why it's wrong. That's why high pressure sales is successful, and also why I oppose it. I totally understand companies choosing to stop selling a product. I have my own views on how that should be handled (e.g. they give up any copyright protections), but if they're still maintaining a product and it costs them nothing to keep selling it (i.e. no ongoing licensing costs), they should keep it available for purchase. > There’s nothing sanitary about unsanitized goods. There's a huge difference between unpasteurized milk and unsanitary milk. When I say "sanitary," I mean things like washing/disinfecting utters before milking, quickly cooling the milk and keeping it cold though shipping, ensuring clean jugs, testing cows for disease, etc. I expect more stringent controls for unpasteurized milk than pasteurized because you don't have that pasteurization process to cover up your mistakes. Pasteurization alters the taste of the milk, to the point that I refuse to drink ultra-pasteurized milk (i.e. shelf-stable milk) and actually prefer powdered milk to it. Unpasteurized milk is delicious, but pasteurized whole milk is close enough, so that's what I buy. > driving too fast is dangerous Well yeah, it presents a risk to others, so it should be controlled. Your rights end where mine begin, and you driving too fast presents an unacceptable risk to my (and others') life. > botulism kills people It certainly does, and should obviously be avoided... That's why we have food safety standards and health inspections, to inform the public of any dangers and shut down dangerous operations. That said, if you want to take the risk, be my guest. I sometimes buy from unregulated street vendors, knowing full well the risks of doing so.

> Cigarette smokers aren’t morons I never said they were. I said they know it's bad for them, yet they continue to smoke cigarettes despite safer options existing, like vapes, patches, and gums. Yet they continue with cigarettes because they prefer them. I'm not talking about how they got addicted, but what they choose to manage that addiction. They know their options, and with taxes, they choose one of the most expensive options. It's their right to make that choice for themselves. > misrepresenting the value of whatever bullshit it’s selling There's no objective measure of value for something like this. They present exactly what you're buying, and you get what's advertised, nothing more, nothing less. That's a clear cut, informed decision. That said, I do draw a line at psychological tricks, like artificial scarcity or other types of FOMO. That's manipulation and I would be fine with prosecuting that because the customer is being tricked. If something will remain in the game, it should always be available to get. Something like paying to respec a character is dumb, but shouldn't be illegal. > It’s your god-given right to guzzle unpasteurized milk. It absolutely is, provided I demonstrate that I understand the risks (e.g. sign a waiver with clear language), and the company does its best to keep things sanitary. The higher the risk, the higher the burden on the provider to keep things as sanitary as possible. I firmly believe people should be allowed to do whatever they want provided it doesn't harm less m others and they are properly informed of the risks.

No, a scam involves fraud, which means misrepresenting a product. > you’re telling other parents how to raise No, I'm telling them how I raise mine and why, and only when it's relevant. > They’re not victims, somehow. If you do something with full knowledge, then no, you're not a victim. > cigarettes as a positive example I think it's a fantastic example. Everyone agrees they're harmful, even smokers, yet they continue to use them despite safer alternatives existing. Does that mean they're too stupid to make their own decisions and we should ban them? No. We should prevent kids from using them, but adults should be free to make their own decisions. I don't want to live in a nanny state where the government decides what's good for me. I want to be treated like an adult, with the responsibilities and consequences that come with that, provided I have accurate information. Instead of banning things, our governments should restrict themselves to advising (e.g. warning labels on cigarettes) and only step in when there's an actual crime (e.g. fraud), and come down *hard* on the offender.