again, easy to say, hard to do.

what does that actually look like moment to moment? what do people do differently between those that do and those that don’t succeed in this? how can you teach something you don’t know because no one taught you?

what does an empathy lesson look like?

it’s a hard problem and we really do need to figure out some specifics if we want to make any real progress.

ok ok ok, i have a theory on where her head was at.

i think it might have been about current messaging around “stop teaching girls is their job to avoid being sexually assaulted and start teaching boys that it’s not ok to do”.

I think in all honestly part of the reason we ended up in this paradigm is because parents generally try to teach what they know. for the most part, in the past men weren’t really aware of how common rape was, or didn’t care. men probably didn’t see it as a thing to talk to their girls about. it was also something they likely had no relevant experience in teaching about. so men didn’t see it a important to teach anything about it to girls. and it didn’t seem likely to negatively affect their son… women on the other hand clearly saw the need to prepare young girls for this reality. so they teach what they know. what little that can do from their perspective with their power. moms default to imparting the defense mechanisms they have built to survive in this terrible state of affairs.

so, my thought is that this is a mother trying to teach her son not to be a predator. but she doesn’t even know what predators think to make them do that. she has no idea what to say that might make her son not do something that she doesn’t understand and doesn’t know if her son has or ever will feel those things. it’s a hard problem. it’s easy to say that we need to put the onus on men to not be predators, but how do we turn that into reality without sounding like this? what does a parent actually say to a young boy that will carry more weight than “don’t do that”.

what do you mean pairing? what kind of os do you plan to put on the mini pc? the biggest hurdle is going to be hdcp compliance with any legal streaming service. something like kodi on the other hand, just works like any other pc? a mini pc is just that. a mini pc. there’s nearly infinite method to connect streaming services to a pc. I have a Plex server, but it doesn’t play nice with all content, so honestly, i usually just use my network storage and pull things straight from the file browser. load them into media player classic with madvr.

I know there’s newer systems that do fancier things, but I’m content. I need to upgrade my nas to be better able to transcode x265 video streams. that’s s big drawback on Plex for me. my biggest use case is watching things virtually with friends. it’s how i watch movies with people. my server can current encode a single x265 video stream pretty well, but the second it has more than one client it chugs. forget it if 4 people want a 4k movie. I would need a crazy beefy rig to run that. it also won’t convert hdr without paying. most of my friends aren’t trying to watch on an hdr screen.

so, we’re back to me streaming via discord screenshare. it’s not the best, but at least i don’t need to keep a separate 4k hdr copy of movie for myself and a 1080p x264 copy for Plex that way. mad vr will even handle the hdr conversion for me when I stream.

it works well enough, though I’m open to suggestions as well. it needs to be easy for the clients to use. it can be hard for me, that’s fine, but jellyfin is too much for most of my friends and family. Plex is already pushing it.

better hardware has always been an advantage, but this is more in line with bmw charging a subscription for heated seats. it’s a new stage of nickel and dime monetization. and just because there’s existing ways to use money to gain an advantage doesn’t mean we should be inventing new ones. rich people don’t need the help, and these companies don’t need the money. accepting and enabling them on this will continue to consent to more and worse pay to win features.

this is explicitly and exclusively a feature to improve performance. whether it’s effective is irrelevant. they intend to let you pay to gain an advantage natively in game. a non scummy game would instead try to minimize and mitigate the differences created by hardware, not add new ways to widen that gap.

oh shit, my bad. yeah IDK then. that’s weird.

~~because a blade movie had been announced, but a blade actor had not. that was more or less the official announcement that snipes would reprise the role.

at least that’s how i took it at the time. maybe it was an oddly tongue in cheek way of implying he was killing the film?~~

fuck me, i was wrong. IDK where i head that.

i couldn’t remember if there was active pvp. i just remember never actually running into it in my time playing.

the base invasion system in metal gear solid 5. it was a risky optional side part, but you would place your best guys and equipment around your base and other players could try to break through that. i don’t remember many of the specifics, but it was kind of interesting.

twitter built itself on doing this the most nonsensical and annoying way possible.

is that like a Russian gangster getting buried in their car?

there’s much more purpose to nature documentaries.

no one would care about any of these animals or there plights without them. zoos and nature documentaries are the biggest drivers or interest and donations in the protecting the natural world.

not interfering with what is happening is more than just a nature documentary thing, it’s a journalism thing in general. the only reason journalists get access to the places and things they do is because they don’t interfere. interfering with the natural world is a hard thing to do right. usually the obvious answer is the wrong one when it comes to preservation and restoration. and i mean sure, there’s times when it’s obvious that your interference wouldn’t be a bad thing, but part of the point of following a code of ethics is to remove the human element. follow the code strictly and you will never cause harm.

imagine if a bbc earth filmmaker accidentally got an endangered animal in a remote area sick because he decided to remove a fish hook. that remote area would never allow anyone to film there again.

but generally, the goal of journalists is to show things as they are. to educate the world on the problem. to do that you must show the problem playing out without intervention. and if there is no problem, if it’s just an animal being hunted then you’d likely be causing harm to something else by preventing it.

a journalist believes they can do more good by showing one child dying to the entire world than by using their talents with words and cameras to somehow save a single starving child. they went there in person to do what they think will be effective in the long term. you could also go there in person to get hands on and save the animals if you want. they are no more guilty of not saving these things than you are.

most media players actually let you do that already and most pirated content includes at least subtitles you can toggle on and off. but if you go for a full Blu Ray iso or remux you’ll usually get the commentary track.

oh I’m sure they actually did. if there’s one thing Republicans are good at, it’s being contrarian assholes about all climate related policy. I’m sure someone tried to poke every hole they could in this.

but you’d have to have a pretty warped understanding of emissions to think that mowing a field with sheep is even close to a lawnmower. this field needs to be mowed to keep the solar panels clear. even if these sheep weren’t eaten or used for any other purpose, this would still be a good policy. as is though, we will also be getting wool, because these sheep will die without being sheered. we will likely be getting other products too. I’m not sure if they will be eaten, but probably not. they aren’t very popular for meat here.

sheep are legitimately a very green way to mow a field when you consider alternatives. like, i guess they could use those hand push manual mowers or scythes or something, but that would mean hiring thousands of people. that may be ultimately the best thing for everyone but the billionaires that profit on it, but let’s bee realistic here. that’s not happening.

i mean, it’s more about letting the Internet decide for them. a person that is so incapable of making their own assessments that they have to ask a random mob permission to date another isn’t going to be a good person to date. didn’t be or date someone that would trust random Internet weirdos who collectively have an incredibly awful track record of giving advice over just talking about it or doing some reading.

that’s the thing though, these aren’t bullet hell either. i agree that the “survivors” branding is confusing, but i don’t think bullet hell is accurate either.

there’s enough of these games now, they need a proper genre title. i legit have a hard time getting people on the same page when discussing these games (vampire survivors, magic survival, deep rock survivors, League of Legends swarm mode, etc…) it usually takes a good 5 minutes before they actually understand what kind of games I’m talking about unless they actively play them. I’ve just been calling them “vampire survivors like” even though i know it’s not the first, it’s the one most people are familiar with.

i think the “survival” part of it is that the only and exclusive goal is to stay alive. The way you choose to build toward that goal is where the gameplay comes in. bullet hell is similar in that regard, but the main goal of bullet hell is to dodge shit to stay alive. the main goal of these is to figure out a build path that makes you kill everything. it’s more like a puzzle than a game of skill. once you get it right you shouldn’t be dodging. i know many people that like bullet hell, but and not these, and vice versa. I’m one of them, i like these games, but not bullet hell. similar on the surface, but the appeal is way different.

huh… there written record of that somewhere you could just look up you know

yeah, getting mad that a singer doesn’t have a good answer to being threatened with violence is a little silly. give her space, this shit is crazy.

anyone who picks at every little thing a partner or potential partner does by requiring the Internet to approve it is toxic as hell. asking the Internet if a behavior that doesn’t effect you is a red flag is a massive red flag.

yeah, it’s likely for insurance or regulatory reasons.

insurance will find any reason possible to deny your claim. even if that is a failure to remove the keys from the ignition after the car burst into flames.

regulators shouldn’t allow slack. with any company in a regulatory situation they will to exactly as much as they’re allowed to get away with. give them an inch, they take a Mile. letting hazard tags slide based on judgement creates space for corruption and abuse. following procedures to the letter with strict documentation can help curtail that.

this might be a regional thing. I’ve never once in my life seen it spelled that was. to me til had only ever been an acronym for “today I learned”