My RX580 is about to be seven years old, and I still haven’t encountered any game that is 1) too intense for it and 2) actually worth playing, considering usually only AAA games are resource-intensive and 99% of them are MTX trash
Similar situation. Still running my 980, and the only games it can’t run are some of the AAA titles. Not even because they are too intense but my card is only supported up to like VidX and they are now on Vid11 or 12.
Nah, but it isn’t that good either. It’s very much mediocre and would have to be as revolutionary as Bethesda claimed it would be to justify the ridiculous hardware requirements.
Space travel and exploration (space and ground, seemlessly), as well as space combat? Elite: Dangerous.
Story? Literally anything.
Combat? Damn near any shooter made in the last 20 years.
Dungeon looting? Just play Fallout 4, which has plenty of issues but none as bad as Starfield.
It’s not bad. It’s just not good at anything. I have no reason to play it over so many other games. It feels like it doesn’t know what it’s supposed to be, so it doesn’t do anything well or interesting.
In my opinion, having played both at launch, it’s a pretty similar experience, except I could see what NMS wanted to be. It wanted to be an exploration game. It just didn’t have any systems to make that interesting.
Starfield doesn’t want to be an exploration game I don’t think, but it does have things to explore but it never makes it interesting or necessary. It’s sci-fi, but that genre is supposed to be used as a lense to look at real-world issues, and it doesn’t critique anything except maybe saying pirates are bad. None of the companions are interesting enough to care about, and they’re almost all identical, so it isn’t about them. The looting gameplay is pretty bad where you just do the same five dungeons over and over, so that obviously wasn’t a priority. I just can’t think of a single thing it actually makes important to the experience, so I don’t know what it’s trying to be.
My second to youngest brother is technically illiterate. Meanwhile my eldest brother is very technically literate and both are completely different generation (younger than boomer) but of the conservative mindset .
my youngest brother is technically literate and liberal. He’s of the same generation as the illiterate brother.
A does not equal B. These kind of fallacy arguments of ‘how generations be’ really need to stop.
What are you talking about? Dinner of these senators can barely string together a thought. Can they email? They certainly can’t foresee the societal implications of AI, it’s impact, how it works. How can they offer oversight?
You just described several of my relatives of the younger generation . Just cuz a person was born in the technical era does not make them a technical genius.
Lol no. I never said anything ageist and neither did you in your comment. You said, you know people who are tech illiterate as well and I said wouldnt that be a problem if their job was regulating technology? The point I was making was that someone uneducated and unfamiliar with current tech, shouldnt be making laws about it. You even suggested that they were of the “tech generation” or something like that, how is anything I said even remotely ageist at all? Also, “desperately dodging” lmao you kind of seem like an idiot.
I hope they wouldn’t oversee technology or anything else they dont understand. The are billions of people but qualified to be a senator. I’m happy you know some
Who said anything about legality? I’m responding to a poorly thought-out, ageist meme about not understanding implications when all generations are making this mistake very regularly.
And the early explosion of bundle sites. Fanatical was BundleStars, Indie Gala, and ton others that had weekly, then bi-weekly and then seemingly daily bundles.
I’d guess that having children, in the long run is more environmentally harmful than you eating meat the rest of your life.
This just strikes me as silly. What is the “environment” but children of various species? Obviously an environmentally harmonious life is best, but life isn’t just what the environment is for, it’s what the environment is. This is the same mindset as people who have a couch that no one’s allowed to sit on.
As does every other life form, given the chance. We are the only one, that we know of, which even has a concept of conservation. We have the power to consciously regulate our behavior.
In the end, my point is that either life is valuable for its own sake, including humans, or it isn’t, including the rest of the ecosystem. Any philosophy which posits that the existence of other life forms is more valid than that of humans is foundationally inconsistent. I’m certainly not saying that human life is more valid than others, but either life is valid or out isn’t. Humans aren’t special one way or the other.
That’s just garbage talk. Sure we can enjoy life now and not consider the future of the planet but is your life more worth than the future of our own species? I find it deeply concerning that we as humans know what to do to not go extinct, buy don’t do it.
I don’t expect all human reproduction to just stop. But cutting down on the human population by either having no children or only one, would substantially reduce the load humans place on the planet and mayne even increase quality of life. Not to mention that it would improve the chances of other species to thrive.
Sure. But your framing of not having children as “environmentally friendly”, if embraced, results in only the unconscientious people having kids. That’s literally the premise of Idiocracy.
There is absolutely no scenario in which everyone stops having children. If everyone who could be convinced not to have children is convinced, there will still be plenty of human beings.
As I’ve said, if you convince everyone who considers their environmental impact to not have children, who does that leave having children? What becomes of the environment when it’s only the environmentally negligent raising future generations?
When one species growing prevents others from doing the same there is a problem in that ecosystem. For example too many wolves in an area can cause a reduction in prey which is also bad for the wolves. We’re just smart enough to see what we’re doing is harmful to the world around us and we can do things to limit our damage.
And not enough wolves causes an unchecked increase in prey which is bad for the rest of the environment. As I said, harmonious coexistence is best. We have the knowledge and tools to live harmoniously. My problem is with the trend of un-nuanced universal anti-natalism.
That’s not really a salient argument. Can you think of even one place where it would be appropriate to say there aren’t enough humans? Besides that, humans and wolves have completely different impact on the environment.
Additionally, after the advent of agriculture and industrialization, I think there is a fair argument to be made that humans are no longer capable of living an environmentally harmonious life. Think of all the resource depletion and fossil fuel consumption required just for you to post that argument on the internet.
Until we regain the ability for, not just individuals, but entire societies to live in harmony with the environment, I believe there is a strong argument for reducing your impact by not having children.
All I’m saying is that there’s a logical breakdown at play. Any argument in favor of “the environment” had to be based on the value of individual life. I’m not even saying that we shouldn’t be moderating our population growth, we should. I’m just saying the environmentally friendly angle is a logically strange argument, from first principles.
“I’d guess that having children, in the long run is more environmentally harmful than you eating meat the rest of your life.” =/= “people who have kids are bad people”
you’re starting to come across as someone who is only in this discussion because you feel personally attacked and since you haven’t I’m done conversing with you
I find a lot of people can kind of fall down from this path, into anti-natalism, and then malthusianism, and then ultimately eco-fascism and eugenics, through what I like to call the “idiocracy deduction”. Name pending. The sort of idea that, if stupid people are the only one having kids, only stupid people will promulgate, and then we’ll all be stupid. Substitute stupid, for whatever political ideological group you don’t really like (or even minority group), bam, shit’s wacked. So, logically, stupid people, or, my political opposition, or, people I don’t like/who can’t be trusted to have kids, shouldn’t be allowed to have them. After all, you know, it’s more ecologically conscientious to not have kids, so we should just kind of force everyone to not have kids. A lot of this is also going to come down to like, third world countries tending to have higher birth rates because of higher infant mortality, and also tending to have higher emissions, and those two are connected because ???. It’s sort of the inverse of christian conservatives who want to force every white anglo saxon protestant into having 70 billion kids, and then do things like ban abortion on those grounds.
I think there’s also this like, really stupid idea that if we have more people, somehow those people will not have any jobs, based on some naturalistic concern. This is stupid. It’s less that we’ve surpassed the planet’s carrying capacity, and more that we all are just fucking morons who live in an 18th century economic hellsystem. That’s the core of why mathusianism doesn’t work, because there is no “hard” carrying capacity to the planet. People in ancient times had to occupy much larger portions of land in order to support themselves, because their crops were not selectively bred to maximize their calories, and because of diseases and shit, which is part of why agriculture sucked back in the day compared to hunter-gathering, (even though in practice the two aren’t really that different, hunter-gatherers just move around more and thus have access to that larger space which they need to “grow their crops”). In any case, you’d have to build some argument that we’ve entered a period of natural technological stagnation, which is pretty fucking hard to do because you have to thoroughly discount any conceivable future technologies that might help, and you have to discredit the amount of blame resting on the current economic system.
So, yeah, I dunno. I find the whole dealio kind of dumb and stupid. Seems like an overcorrection, kind of like those hardcore atheists that were everywhere in the 2000’s and 2010’s, and you could tell they’d all grown up being raised by radical fundamentalist christian parents or whatever, or just that christians are fucking annoying (big if true), and then have kind of a limited perspective, even just on all religions, because of that, on top of not really being politically different enough from those christians, if you actually boiled it all down. Everyone’s a neoliberal, at the end of the day, everyone’s buying in to the same premises and arguments, even when they disagree on some issue, and then they all fail to see the bigger picture and just kind of end up splintering themselves into more and more radical extremist positions.
Actually you can stop reading here (if you even read all of that, good luck), but I kind of wonder if that’s just like, an inevitable facet of late stage capitalism. It sort of seems to me like the ideological version of spam, which I tend to think of a lot as an analogy for capitalism “maximizing efficiency”. Spam is nonsense, nobody wants to read it, and yet, it will inevitably eat up all the bandwidth if left unchecked, because those with the most economic resources want to cut out all other avenues of communication, and, “make efficient use of the bandwidth”. The fact that everyone eventually becomes kind of radicalized and pushed into these nonsensical extremist positions, totally lacking nuance, the fact that, you know, people slip into fascism, it seems kind of along the same lines. People get pushed to what the maximum extent of their political ideology will allow, through some mechanism, despite liberalism kind of inherently being a modest and compromising ideology at heart, one that becomes incoherent if you actually push it to any logical extremes. I dunno if there’s anything there, about how people’s conceptions of things gets shaped by like, the larger economic system at work.
Upvote for partial agreement, but why the attack on atheism? It’s not extreme to not believe, in fact, it sounds utterly ridiculous that you want moderate or liberal people to believe a little bit in fairy tales, but not too much. There simply is no middle ground with regard to religion, either you delude yourself or you accept the obvious implausibility, lack of evidence and irrationality inherent to them.
Theyre talking about atheists in 00s10s that were ex-Christians who were still closed minded and hateful, and essentially using the same flawed evangelism tactics as Christians (not great). They don’t recognize that not all religions are the same, that different ones have different goals, and never considered why someone would choose to practice any form of spirituality, labelling it as a form of religion.
It’s not just the accent, it’s his age/health combined with the accent. He was at least understandable with effort back in the day, now he practically needs a translater.
memes
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.