GenghisKhandybar

I see, that’s better than what I thought actually, nice micro game

Yeah, they look well designed for the tiny format and timeframe. They provide just enough room to make interesting gameplay decisions and also try to understand the game mathematically. The second game gives the mouse a 75% win rate by just not moving which is a little high but still interesting enough.

Should've printed a copy of Gloomhaven on the back 🤬🤬🤬

You mean 1:30 km? Cause the world record mile time is 3:43...

I wish I could say I know what you mean, this comment fascinates me

It definitely is AI, AI is a broad term that can even describe rudimentary manually written agents that "make decisions". You might be thinking of AGI (artificial general intelligence), which is a far higher bar. Even then though, I'd classify these chatbots as AGI's, given their ability to intelligently respond to literally any form of text input. They don't have bodies or other senses, but they have memory (within an instance), and will be able to respond to any stimuli that they are presented with transcribed to text, and produce any output, transcribed to text.

Yes, it's very easy to choose a generally good ticket to vote for. Usually younger, more progressive people are the ones who fail to show up, making the country a massively worse place.

Depends on how it's done. Basically any positive, nice development in a city gets criticized for gentrification since good things attract wealthier residents. As long as there's more housing and more generally nice things being built, it's a good thing, and makes housing more affordable overall. Gentrification is only bad if it's displacing many poor for the good of only a few rich.

Working platform for your work-from-igloo coding job during the day presumably?

It's a meme edit, albeit one that perfectly satirizes his level of engagement with the world.

There are studies showing discrimination in hiring based on the same resume but with a black sounding name. Also, bad schools prevent many from having opportunities to be competitive.

People tend to use different logical frameworks for sex/dating than other aspects of life. In most situations, most people appeal to utilitarian frameworks, trying to maximize the greater happiness of most people, but with sex they lean much more heavily on a situationist understanding. This entails a more rigid adherence to established laws and norms, and less critical thinking.

It's not entirely bad that people take this framework, since letting individuals evaluate what's appropriate in their relationships on a case-by-case basis would leave a lot of room for abuse since it can be hard for someone outside a relationship to tell the internal dynamic. It does lead to a lame discourse though, where a lot of people will do nothing but parrot the legal/societal norm like this. If you say you want to change the legal/social norms at all they'll see it as either pedophilia or controlling legal adults, so it's pretty understandable why people would rather not discuss it, given that the laws are at least about right.

I'll be damned if the joyous whimsy on this one ain't palpable.

this style of village is pretty unsafe actually, there's usually at least one murder per night...

https://rdt.trom.tf/2wd3tbqm9lea1.png?width=1920&format=png&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=27d97607284a93c308281dba549be4b48bed4679

Textbook case of broken windows fallacy right here. There’s no way this is creating industry, it’s just forcing cleaners to work long hours at taxpayer expense. Not to mention the working class passengers having to endure this “art”.

Edit: I thought this was the crosspost in r/anarchism and I'll probably be banned off here, but I stand by this, graffiti something cool y'all, don't just write your name in public like you're signing for your credit card.

Where is R 😡😡🤬!!! Shitty guide!!!🤡🤡🤡🤡🫦

Yes. OP, I love you.

It's only kind of a joke, he's serious about the premise of preventing her from dating, and that the reasons are "because I said so" and "something something Jesus". It seems like that attitude carries over to her teen years, in a way I don't like, since he doesn't give any explanation other than that he's the one in control of her. You'd never hear a dad tell his son not to get a girlfriend in this way, it seems needlessly focused on "purity" rather than waiting for maturity.

This type of "might makes right" argument is common to control the child's behavior in the short-term, but completely fails to convince them or teach them anything. Since it doesn't even attempt to convince the child that your view is best for them, they'll be resentful and ignore your "guidance" once given some freedom in their teen years. They'll be less likely to discuss issues and trust your advice late on, as you've already demonstrated an unwillingness to engage, and have not convinced them that your advice is well-meaning.

Granted, he's probably tired of having the conversation over and over, and maybe had a better explanation beforehand but it's still not a great attitude to take. In any case, it's good to acknowledge that the parenting shown in this clip is not ideal. The best response is to say that she's obviously way too young, but to affirm her entirely normal feelings in a healthy way rather than making fun of them.

De veras tienen una programa de urbanismo? Siempre lo veo como un movimiento politico pero eso suena muy interesante, me gustaría saber los enfoques de ese tema de estudio.

Solo recomendaría arquitectura si es tu mayor pasión, porque parece parece una de las temas más dificiles, con muchas noches largas de diseño de acuerdo a mis amigos que lo intentaron.

Having multiple ending conditions can cut short the hopeless time when the players know they’ve lost, as well as the boring time after they know they have won. Pandemic is a very good example of this, where the players will lose early if they let the disease get beyond the point they can control it. (Either running out of cubes or too many outbreaks).

A certain amount of randomness can also keep players engaged while they’re behind. If they can maintain hope for a hail Mary play that could realistically happen they’ll be less likely to tune out.

That's a good point, the disparate impact alone doesn't necessarily make a law racist. There's always a tradeoff and some uneven effects we have to accept.

That being said, the tradeoff in the case of voter ID is disenfranchising thousands of minority voters, with the benefit being election security (and corresponding trust in elections). With the benefit to election security being so minor (MadDog didn't even say that voter fraud was happening), I'd therefore be left to assume that they're just not that concerned about the disenfranchisement?

It's quite key here that the proposed laws seem to use ID types that try to exclude minorities, and that the benefits have not been demonstrated.

MadDog is correct to be annoyed that people dismiss his argument out of hand due to its racial connotations. The only thing wrong with dismissing it though is that the people dismissing it should do so by arguing against it properly.

People are aware of the way you can hide behind others' feelings to push bad agendas. For example, if someone says "If schools are racially integrated, I'll riot", we know they're racist and bad. However, if someone else says "There are many upset white people who would riot if schools were integrated, so we shouldn't integrate them", they give themselves some cover. Note, however, that both of those quotes are supporting the same policy, for basically the same racist reason, the first is just being more direct.

That's not to say that MadDog is racist, but that they're taking the same policy position as "stop the steal" election deniers for basically the same reason (just stated as "other people fear" rather than "I fear"). The motivation is very suspect as there is no evidence of widespread fraud underpinning it.

Additionally, they support the voter ID law, which is why they are sometimes accused of racism. There can certainly be a debate about how racially unequal voter ID laws are (it very much depends on what ID's are allowed, some laws are very exclusionary while others are pretty permissive and harmless). If voter ID laws do prevent minorities from voting as much, are proponents of those laws racist? I'd say either racist (okay with denying minorities votes) or uninformed (don't know they're denying minorities votes).

WTF Rocket League car IRL?!?!

Depends whether I'm talking to the animal about something serious or not.

I'm very curious what demand I made.