Yes, but most aren’t able to be used like a laptop/desktop PC. You can’t install any software from outside the official repository on a Xbox or Playstation whereas the Steam Deck is just a handheld laptop with Linux as the OS.
At first I thought I was reading AI hallucinations talk. Are you saying people used to get whole encyclopedias through rewards programs? And it wasn’t a scam??
It wasn’t a scam at all! They also had specials where you could get dishes and silverware sometimes! My mom still has an entire set of blue willow that came from the grocery store in the 80s lol
That sounds really nice. I sometimes wish I could’ve experienced that 80s-90s glow. Where things really seemed beneficial rather than some big ploy for money. I guess it’s always been about the money, we just stopped hiding the fact at one point. I also don’t mean to simplify things, the past has been unkind to many people.
I remember grandmas house had character, everything in it meant something. Everything in my house is from Amazon.
One of the funniest, my wife majored in British literature in college. She’s read all major works, reads Shakespeare for fun, and can read and speaks middle English. I worked and traveled to England a few times a year and had lived there in my early 20s, before we met.
For our fifth anniversary I took her to England. It was her first time ever leaving the US. In fact the first time she left the southern US.
We’re standing at the curb at Gatwick waiting for a cab and there are two guys behind us talking. My wife leans over and whispers, “what language are they speaking?”
I just started laughing, and explained they were speaking English, they are just Scottish. All that book learning and studying of the language couldn’t prepare her for the Scottish accent.
Kinda late to the party here but I’ll share a couple of my favorites:
Melodysheep - video essays about science and science fiction with absurdly high quality animations and production value
Mustard - same as above, except about interesting and/or unusual real vehicles
Casually Explained - just a dude with a great sense of humor and crude artwork explaining random things to you
Sam O’Nella Academy - same as above, except covering very specific and much weirder topics
Biblaridion - his usual content is about conlangs (don’t ask, I don’t know either) but his ongoing Alien Biospheres series about speculative evolution is simply amazing
TierZoo - highly entertaining videos about animals and zoology, except it’s all a videogame
LowSpecGamer - as the name implies, he used to make videos about making AAA games run on potato systems but has since pivoted into making (great) mini docs about the history of videogames and technology
Cyriak - he doesn’t post often but the dude has been making the same kind of technically impressive and often disturbing animations for over 15 years now
I’ve been called a tanky, neolib, fascist, radfem, misogynist, racist, “woke”, republican, Democrat, religious nutjob, and militant athiest over my time on Reddit and I wouldn’t really agree with any of those descriptors lol. People just assume that if you have an even remotely nuanced opinion on a topic then you must belong to the “other side”. I don’t really care most of the time. I know what I believe and I don’t let it be defined by tribalism.
Using that as an example, if you spend a lot of most of your time let’s say defending little details about bad people it can come off as someone muddying the waters on purpose to downplay the awful things they do.
Or maybe your just on some shitty subs full of dumb people 🤷♂️
You’re assuming I spend my time defending bad people, which I don’t do. I just use critical thinking and point out logical fallacies. I believe fallacies are always bad, even if they support a position I agree with.
That’s exactly what I’m talking about. If a lot of your comments are pointing out logical fallacies against bad people then it looks like you’re muddying the waters. For example pointing out logic fallacies in arguments against conservatives but not doing the same against liberals wouldn’t make you wrong outright, but you’d be wrong by omission.
Haha as well. I’ve been called chauvinist, fascist and other words associated with the super far right, even though I’m center left on the compass. It’s impressive how utterly extinct nuance is in social media and traditional news.
I feel for you here. I think of myself as left of center but it is funny how much one side or the other treats the center like the hardest core of the other end. Its funny because I way back when I had started at a catholic college where I seemed waaayyy left but then transfered to the state school where I seemed centerist or at best kinda left and if you compared me to the school population then right of center. I did find the liberal state school seemed to have more of self awareness that the environment was skewed left whereas the catholic institution viewed itself as more center.
I do think it would be helpful to have more clarity on the definitions of terms for different states of transitioning/non-transitioning but unfortunately that’s outweighed by the privacy concerns and the infighting and effort it would cause
It’s less about having the language and more about agreeing on the specifics of what language we do have. That’s not gatekeeping, just categorization. Mildly useful but people calling it “gatekeeping” is exactly why it wouldn’t be helpful to try to define it in practice (don’t mean to attack you, just taking an example).
Well, the easiest example is that some people use “trans” to mean anyone who has physicslly started to transition, others consider someone to be trans when they decide to broadcast their new gender identity, and others consider them to have always been trans. The opinion on which one is correct is often quite strong.
You could define it as “anyone who says they’re trans is trans” and avoid this entire issue, which is largely what the relevant laws do (unless they’re weirdly invasive), but that opens up the system for abuse by bad actors looking to false flag the trans community.
Well, the easiest example is that some people use “trans” to mean anyone who has physicslly started to transition, others consider someone to be trans when they decide to broadcast their new gender identity, and others consider them to have always been trans. The opinion on which one is correct is often quite strong.
Yep. People have strong feelings about their own journeys and identities. They’re welcome to do that. But when they start having strong feelings about other people’s journeys and identities, when they feel like that get to decide who isn’t and isn’t trans based on whatever criteria they particularly feel to be important, then they’re gatekeeping.
Those are the truscum and transmeds I want nothing to do with.
but that opens up the system for abuse by bad actors looking to false flag the trans community.
No it doesn’t. That’s just an excuse people use to post hoc validate their gatekeeping.
Gatekeeping as I’m using it in this context is the act of unnecessarily excluding someone from a community or diminishing their attempts to participate*. That’s why I think the best definition of most personal identity terms is a permissive one, eg. “anyone who decides to transition is trans”. But opening up that definition means we need another way to refer to people who are physically transitioning, because there are meaningful differences in their experiences and needs. (“Physically transitioning” honestly suits this purpose fine IMO.)
But there’s nothing wrong with choosing a narrower definition if you don’t use that to discriminate or exclude non-physically-transitioning trans people from spaces that could apply to them. It’s not a good idea because that message is easily able to be twisted to be exclusionary, but there’s nothing inherently gatekeeping about it; the term that would be common use would likely just become the one that refers to all types of trans people. Defining “trans” to be narrower than the wider definition is only wrong because we’re attached to the current definition. Which is a very good reason to keep that word defined as the broader group, but again someone who isn’t familiar with this would rightly see it as a valid definition.
note that the precise definition matters here, as I believe it does with a great many things
It’s not “opening up” a definition. It is the definition.
But opening up that definition means we need another way to refer to people who are physically transitioning, because there are meaningful differences in their experiences and needs.
No we don’t. Not everyone who undergoes medical transition undergoes the same journey. Some folk want surgery, some folk want HRT, some folk want both, some folk want one but not the other. Some folk want to micro dose, some folk want to replicate cis hormone levels.
There is no meaningful catch all term that summarises the needs of all of those folk. Trying to find a single term to capture that spectrum leads to a single narrative of what medical transition looks like, and makes it harder for people to transition on their own terms.
The language we need to talk about these things already exists, and is improving and changing with time. Nothing is gained by returning to the old days of binary terms and all or nothing language.
there’s nothing inherently gatekeeping about it;
Yes there is. It’s defining folk who medically transition as being a different class of trans folk. We’re not a different class. We all of us have unique needs, and the language should focus on those individual needs, whether they’re medical, social or other.
Defining “trans” to be narrower than the wider definition is only wrong because we’re attached to the current definition
This is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about in my original reply. I’m a binary trans woman, who medically transitioned with all of the bells and whistles, and so I get lumped in with people who genuinely believe statements like this.
I actively, loudly and strongly disagree with what you’ve said here, and I hate that people often assume I share beliefs like that. Defining the term trans to be narrower than it is is gatekeeping, end of story. It denies people the right to their own identity. That is inherently bad. People define for themselves, even in a hypothetical scenario where bad faith actors try and fuck it up
So I agree with the first half pretty well, you make some good points. But:
there’s nothing inherently gatekeeping about it;
Yes there is. It’s defining folk who medically transition as being a different class of trans folk. We’re not a different class. We all of us have unique needs, and the language should focus on those individual needs, whether they’re medical, social or other.
In general, just because everyone has unique needs/qualities/etc., that doesn’t mean that it’s not useful to have categories anyways. Although in this case perhaps you’re right, the situations are often complicated enough that it would be too reductive. In extending my wider pro-categorization stance to this issue in particular I may have ignored the naturally complex nature of it.
I get lumped in with people who genuinely believe statements like this.
I’m not sure exactly what you’re referring to, and you reacted differently enough compared to the rest of what I said that I think you may have misinterpreted my stance here?
It denies people the right to their own identity. That is inherently bad.
And that’s why I started this off by saying that it wouldn’t be productive to argue for this. Even if I were correct in theory*, nobody who this matters for would ever accept my definition, or any definition, other than the one that they believe to be true. You cannot force someone to accept a label that they don’t want, even if there would be benefits to using it. Although given what you said I’m not sure now that there would be benefits anyways.
There would be a power vacuum, probably a few murders/suicides/defenstrations, and the elections scheduled for a few months from now will probably be postponed during the struggle for leadership of the country. My guess is the powers that eventually take over will agree to pull out of Ukraine, conduct a few show trials, and do whatever else they think they have to in order for the west to lift the sanctions and unlock the oligarch’s accounts.
It would please me greatly to know that Ukraine will outlive Putin.
Depends on the apocalypse. If it’s sufficient to wipe out global trade and logistics chances are they’ll be rebuilding in the Stone Age, especially if there are no skilled craftsmen like smiths to keep even the most basic tooling working. Modern civilization has huge requirements for a stable supply of power and highly specialized professionals to keep it running. Get a Big apocalypse and you’ll lose enough of those people to make it impossible to re-start civilization.
That's exactly my point, the comment I'm responding to said that all apocalypses were unrecoverable.
We built up our current civilization starting in the stone age, so being knocked back that far isn't inherently unrecoverable. We can do it again. (And no, there isn't an absolute dependency on fossil fuels that are now gone. There are other ways to industrialize than just the exact specific route we took the first time around. Just getting ahead of that since it's a very common counterargument about such things).
This might be overkill for your needs but you should see if your local library has Lexis-Nexis. It’s a research tool rather than a public search engine but it’s pretty comprehensive.
In fact, everyone should see what kind of random services their local library provides. I was shocked when I did that and found out we can checkout small power tools and stuff like that.
Everyone knows the 3D platformer genre died out and people stopped putting effort into them as much, so it would be more like if someone had a favourite genre of music that went out of fashion and was hard to find anymore.
It’s not that. I’m going to have to edit my post now because I was already considering writing that disclaimer. It’s not a nostalgia thing. There are literally no 3rd person shooter 3D platformers outside of PS2 and those are the kinds of 3D platformers I enjoy most… give me an example to prove me wrong
I’m not sure I understand - what would you call Banjo-Kazooie? Or even Super Mario 64? What do you mean by “3d platformer”? Like “open world” kinda game?
It’s funny to me that there’s a “Reddit” section on the fediverse where people just post complaints about Reddit. Just get over it already and move on.
It’s still helpful to talk about what’s going on elsewhere
see what we can do better
see what good features are worth adopting here
Calling out bad actions by other platforms. We don’t HAVE to help people that aren’t on the Fediverse, but there are a lot of experienced and knowledgeable people on here that can discuss issues and how we can address them
On a more on topic note: Lemmy is small. We dont have the population to warrant that specific of a community, yet. I’d recommend starting by joining a community about vinyl, making posts about vinyl care, and seeing how they do. When you’re taking up a significant percentage of a larger parent topics feed, I’d say it’s time to splinter off
I’d just add that we run the risk of being extremely unappealing if we have too many communities with near 0 activity. We’re better served at the beginning having fewer, more general communities, to attract critical masses
It’s also a problem with algorithms. Big communities drown out smaller ones because the sorting only looks at absolute numbers. Change is underway though.
I am gonna be a lil wary about breathing while very close to my records now, I should’ve guessed there was something terrible about the big fun plastic music discs 😭 thank you for sharing the video!
asklemmy
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.