LightHugger

I don't think is exaggerated by gamers, if anything it's widely understated. The issue is that denuvo affects the 1% lows and latency much more than the average FPS. But the 1% lows and latency have an outsized effect on player experience, average framerate can be the same but if 1% lows and latency are miserable then you are playing a completely different game.

You are not wrong about the additional failure of AAA to keep their games optimized but the ways denuvo affects performance are particularly insidious.

> you said it seemed to you like Democrats were trying to reconstruct a form of slavery. That's incorrect.

Uh, no? I was replying to someone who brought up slavery and i pointed out if something is similar, importing in a large underclass of exploitable cheap labor is certainly similar. Illegal immigration is not a form of slavery, not sure where you got that, but when we're already in the realm of absurd analogies it's definitely more similar by comparison.

Worth noting that denuvo causes a lot of hitching, massive load time increases and overall performance problems. Denuvo marketing dept likes to say this isn't true but you only have to look at the before/after on games with and without it, monster hunter world was a very stark example. I have no doubt denuvo is also massively contributing to the performance problems on Monster Hunter Wilds as well.

I'm not the person uncritically examining party propaganda. My information is based on what the democratic party has said and done, nobody else. So, entire post misses the mark very hard for me.

Frankly i think you're exactly the person who is part of the problem here, proudly prejudiced, not very well informed despite thinking you know better than everyone.

> Do you think any party is in favor of illegal immigration? How would that work anyway? Parties try to pass laws. The best you could find is that some party favors immigration policies you would prefer be illegal.

This kind of reads like it's written by AI or something but either way it's irrational on such a fundamental level that i don't really know what to make of it. Obviously a ruling power in a country can be in favor of something illegal and take action to increase illegality on purpose. That's what you are saying trump is doing, so you don't even disagree with yourself. Where did you think the huge numbers of illegal immigrants came from while under democratic leadership, did they materialize independently? No, they promoted illegality.

It wasn't in my post but just in case you aren't an AI, the democratic party is pro illegal immigration for relatively straightforward reasons. their large corporate donors like having a large cheap underclass of workers to exploit and abuse. Illegal immigrants are much less likely to cause problems at work and are likely to work harder because they are at a much higher risk. If you're a CEO you can bet it's better to hire people you know will never unionize, you can exploit easily and won't file any workplace safety complaints. You can even commit wage theft with abandon, what are they going to do about it? There's also other secondary effects like creating a large amount of illegality overloads the courts and generally creates chaos which can be easy to exploit.

I've also seen the argument that the dems hope to swing demographics to secure the vote but i'm not so sure about that one, especially considering how hard legal voting immigrants are swinging against the democratic party for all of my prior mentioned reasons. I feel like if you were actually in touch with the legal immigrant population you would understand this a lot better.

I'm in favor of large scale legal immigration so people get full workplace rights and aren't easy to take advantage of. Duh. Creating an underclass of workers with less rights to keep corpo rat profits rising is bad. The democratic party has done the opposite, this is fact. Not really sure what else there is to say, all your smoke isn't worth much.

And i do think the dem's longer term plan was something stupid like "bring in infinite illegal immigrants to create a problem" and then "we will sell the solution and make them all citizens!" and that went ass up with their own hubris exploding in their face. Either way that's evil shit.

This isn't popular. People don't want to reward illegal behavior with citizenship, the process should be relaxed for people who want to come in the future but if someone has already broken the law of the land to come here they should already be disqualified. Maintain criminality checks but increase the numbers allowed in each year. This is perfectly viable.

Have you thought about why trump's voterbase includes so many legal immigrants? immigrants who put in the immense effort to come here properly are tired of people sneaking into the country and the democratic party conflating legal and illegal immigrants and acting like the two groups are the same.

First of all, chill out, for someone tooting their own horn, your own perspective is very one dimensional. What's really interesting about the democratic party's position is how they've utterly failed to embrace the popular parts of "left" policy (universal healthcare and etc, basically look at bernie sanders for what policy is actually widely popular on the left). And yet, they embrace incredibly unpopular parts of "extreme left". Being pro-illegal immigration is incredibly stupid and unpopular. DEI discrimination on the basis of race is also incredibly stupid and unpopular. I suppose i could also mention transitions for children. Need i mention free speech? It's a travesty that republicans have become the free speech party, but it's something the left has ceded.

So we're in a situation where the democratic party is utterly failing to actually implement any of the good or popular left policies that would help the masses, even the pretty moderate ones, but is pushing incredibly unpopular extreme left policies that don't actually help the citizenry. In that context it's honestly a very reasonable thing for someone on the right to point to the dems call the party far left. And yet for those of us that want these policies for the people, the dems appear right-leaning. Very odd how this has worked out, but both are true in a way.

I think the reason behind this is mainly due to them being controlled by their corporate donors who dictate focusing on the unpopular policies which are cheaper for the corporations to contend with. Universal healthcare would be a huge blow to corporate control in this country, as right now healthcare is tied to employment and that gives large corporate employers incredibly excessive power.

the eu set 12mg as an absolute upper limit on what's safe.

I'm curious, do you exercise every day? b6 seems to get flushed out of the body in proportion to how much exercise you get, as it gets released by the muscles and then only partially reabsorbed with each cycle. It's possible what you're taking would cause you nerve damage if you were sedentary.

40mg is far over daily limit of 12mg the eu placed on b6 supplements. and even 12mg is likely too high.

That makes perfect sense though?

Chesterton's fence is way too relevant, when it comes to the "citizenship is stupid, borders are stupid, countries are stupid blah blah blah" part.

You mean you watched people writing misinformation articles smearing people in realtime, or were you actually on the hubs where gamergate was organized? There is a big difference between these things, and no there were not people organizing for "misogyny campaigns" the discussion was 99% corruption and ethics focused. Especially in gaming circles of 2014 which were very progressive.

Quite frankly i find people who think there were actually some kind of organized misogyny campaigns in 2014 to be a form of insane, like something breaks inside a person because they need a bogeyman so badly that it becomes a core of their being even though it's incredibly irrational. At the time journalists would just take random twitter people who weren't affiliated with gamergate and hold them up as if they represented the movement. Reminds of me the tactics used against occupy wall street honestly. It's not a rational or reasonable belief.

Communists no, young progressives yes. It's kind of insane to believe that a majority audience of gamers in the year 2014 would be anything but progressive, at least until the entire media turned on them and orchestrated a misinformation campaign out of a combination of a core of malice then a majority of laziness.

Then why are other language articles completely different? Have you gone and checked? Are all the other articles just wrong? Why is the "consensus" for the gamergate article citing direct primary sources that were involved and attacked by gamergate instead of reliable and impartial secondary sources? Nobody has even bothered addressing any of questions or points i brought up yet. Because they break the narrative.

The way the article is written is arguably biased and irrational on it's face, when reading it you should get the feeling of something being amiss and information being excluded. Sometimes you can just tell when writing is biased based on the language, it's a pattern that's good to learn.

There are counterexamples where this has failed/continues to fail, the gamergate article is famously non-neutral, only accepting primary sources from journalists directly involved in the controversy. This is rather than true secondary sources with less extreme and biased views, like is supposed to be the rules there. You can switch from the english one to other languages and get completely different content with very balanced point of views because the other languages weren't controlled by the influence campaign.

So, is it better than reddit? I agree, probably. That bar doesn't seem very high though.

Part of the issue with gamergate discussion is that there's a lot of vapid perspectives along the lines of "it's just video game journalism who cares" which allows an infinite amount of bad behavior, dishonesty and manipulation in the name of an abstract greater good. I believe it was used as a prototype for future wikipedia manipulation for "more important" topics.

I asked a question that was 4-0, then suddenly 8 votes came in at once that made the score 4-8, i wonder if that was a UI bug or if the 8 votes were the AI kicking in and they all disagreed with the human answer...

I just watched a video where a guy kayak'd down a new york city river with countless electric share scooters thrown into the water by people who just didn't want to pay for a scooter ride. All up and down the river for 8km they were there.

I think the OP is on to something.

IBM/red hat, google, apple are all receiving extremely well evidenced anti white and asian discrimination lawsuits. When a lunatic goes on a racist tirade about how she hates hiring white people online and doesn't want to work with them she's not fired from her job at EA, these instances of public unfairness stack up and have become evidence of an ongoing systemic issue over the past 10 years.

Discriminating against people on the basis of race or gender is unacceptable, that's the bottom line, going "do you think anyone will actually take you seriously" and accusing me of being an uber driver (?) is the theme type of language i'm talking about. Segregationists in the 60s and 70s constantly used this exact style of derision and appeal to marketability, spend some time just reading the writings of segregationists at the time and you will see yourself. Sorry but there's a simple objective truth here and you're on the wrong side of it, trying to call me racist while you're defending racist practices is just pointless, it looks like a fish floundering.

And it's actually really amazing how your post boils down to 'You're white so you deserve it, nobody will take whites seriously!' despite you not even knowing my race!

> I see nothing wrong with prejudice against ...

> I look forward to you and your army of white men

We know, the secret is out, you and all the other racist lunatics never saw anything wrong with prejudice. It's the same type of thinking that fought against civil rights in the 70s that just moved straight over to the hot new forms of racism and discrimination just because you think it's socially acceptable.

> Is there anything humanizing about the hiring process? Or is it one of the most dehumanizing things most engineers experience?

You are saying this in order to defend racist hiring practices. Whether or not the base hiring process sucks is not part of the discussion on whether or not we should allow racial discrimination in said hiring process.

In the end it's always individual innocent people that get hurt, not broad identity groups that you think deserve it.

This is an irrational conclusion to leap to, it only makes sense if you're a weird extremist.

the NixOS project did have purges and even ousted theirown founder though so i'm not surprised by this kind of comment appearing here assuming a corporation is aware of the insane nixOS drama train.

Yes actually, i've been ranting about this for a long time, sufficiently powerful corporations are a form of government. I'm not conservative though despite being anti-dei so make of that what you will, i think a lot of people on the left are being lumped in with people on the right because we oppose the types of discrimination and racism now popular with the "left".

Meritocratic hiring of the best candidates is equality of opportunity, not equity/equality of outcome. Equity requires discrimination and dehumanization of individual people to achieve because racial distributions vary at an earlier stage than the hiring process. I agree that a responsible company tries to remove bias and doesn't discriminate on the basis of immutable characteristics, however...

It's not the people criticizing them that have lumped them all together. People in support of these programs have failed to self police entirely, for example IBM/Red Hat, google, apple are suffering very firmly evidenced racial discrimination lawsuits for discriminating against people with white skin using quotas, firing hiring managers for refusing to discriminate, and so on. These lawsuits were initiated long before the 2024 election, it's not a trump thing for example though he has made use of it because his dem party opponents support these practices.

If someone makes a blatant racist comment on twitter with their employer directly implicated, if the target race is white that person does not end up being fired in today's companies. These public and frequent appearances of unfairness stack up in the public eye. It's enough evidence there's a failure to self-police within the general DEI and HR landscape and i think people are very much done with the entire concept.

It appears to be a common view of many that "you can't be racist against white people" (direct quote of a kotaku journalist journalist, who was not fired for the statement, they also had a couple statements supporting racial violence against whites, big surprise), but obviously such a view is in itself race based discrimination that generalizes and dehumanizes individual experiences on the basis of race.

You can also look up the Dani Lalonders racist tirade, she's a game developer who has not been fired from EA for her comments despite openly admitting to illegal discrimination and only hiring black people to her team and just generally being insane.

"People like you" So prejudiced, maybe get that looked at.

It's a complicated topic, but no we have not always been doing merit based hiring. However, merit based hiring does result in imbalanced race and gender distributions due to long term societal issues and demographic distributions at earlier stages.

Basically, there is a skewed class distribution at the source. You have to fix it at the source via equality of opportunity and making our society more equal. I'm not a conservative, i'm very far left and strongly believe in making society more equal in general. However. Trying to fix it at the destination is called racial discrimination and is dehumanizing and evil and anyone who does it should suffer prosecution.

You don't get to dehumanize and discriminate against individual people for the greater good, i will personally go out of my way to see you receive consequences if you try this and you're doing it somewhere i can see. There's a lot of us with this opinion, hopefully your stance starts getting chilled from fear of blowback.

I agree. But did you stand up against discrimination against innocent people under the banner of DEI? Did you stand up against government directed censorship campaigns on social media?

The time to stand up was actually way before the extreme actions of the left inspired this extreme reactionary overcorrection from the right. You're supposed to stand up while you're still in power, not after you've lost it, it's a bit late. I still remember people insisting "but deplatforming works!" as they justified mass censorship of conservatives. Honestly if you have not stood up for the people you politically disagreed with as the noose tightened over the last 10 years you are part of the cause of this terrible over-correction.

I can only hope that people start noticing this pattern and the inevitable next "correction" is not so extreme and we get some damping on the seemingly accelerating pendulum back and fourth.

> Some people have criticized that their company culture of libertarianism sometimes takes precedence over other important values including equity and inclusion.

To push for equity is to discriminate and dehumanize people, so it's certainly good that valve does not put this value ahead of anything else let alone allow them to take precedence over taking care of their customer base. They are perfectly inclusive as well, though they are not "inclusive", the kind where they discriminate against people on the basis of race to please some misguided quotas.

I agree with your points, especially about economic class. I've been thinking since the original occupy wall street protests that there's been a shift towards pitting people against each other on the basis of other identity rather than class. Maybe it's been an intentional push to create infighting and divert people away from eating the rich or whatever.

I usually don't pay too much mind to trying to guess what the OP might want, rather the topic has been raised here so it's a good conversation to have.

What evidence? People use it to bypass the payment processor cartels all the time.

Cryptocurrency allows people who are otherwise limited by draconian payment platform limitations, puritanical moralists who own credit card companies and such to buy and sell things online without being stopped. It's obviously not a good system but it provides a high effort release valve, a fallback mechanism that hopefully will undermine some of these draconian measures. Lots of people have been helped by the existence of cryptocurrency because of this, especially since lately a lot of bad actors control payment platforms and often just shut down businesses on whims.

Whether more have been helped or hurt is debatable but it certainly has a tangible, if niche, use case with real value. It certainly has no value as a store of value, though.

People point out issues with affirmative action literally all the time without racial slurs, it's how the majority of discussions on the topic go. What does it mean for you to see a rare instance of extremist hackers defacing a website, and go "it's telling", you are hinting that some of your confirmation bias got fueled while avoiding being more than vague about your actual thoughts.

Where is the adult conversation you claimed to want? We can talk about the reality that racial discrimination fuels racial tensions in general. That we have now reached a point in society where there are numerous mismatches in discrimination, in some places you are likely to be discriminated against if you're black, in some places you are likely to be discriminated against if you are white. The goal of ending racial discrimination was to end discrimination not just shift around the targets. It's unfortunate how people don't seem to realize that.

It turns moderate people against you more than it helps. Not sure where people get this idea that moderates react well to purity spirals directed at them.

the advertising industry doesn't have a right to invade people's privacy on an unprecedented level, and create a massive black market for reselling people's personal information. But they do, so adblocking is, at the moment, the ethical and morally correct option.

If you work in a part of the advertising industry with any kind of privacy invasion you deserve to lose your job and have your business be shut down, in some cases even jail time would be completely deserved. So no you don't need to allow ads for ethical reasons.