You mean the conspiracy theory that somehow the World Bank isn’t there to do it’s real job, provide loans to poor countries to aid their development, but instead part of some grand scheme to rob poor countries of their resources?

Because what you claim to be well documented isn’t actually objective fact. It’s more construing mistakes these institutions definitely did make to be something they very much aren’t.

It’s just a suggestion, if you’ve already started DS9 I would just stick with that tbh.

Basically two reasons.

First, DS9 is straight up better. Peak Star Trek in my opinion, so it’s nice to end on a high note. Again, not that VOY is bad or anything, but if DS9 is 10/10 Star Trek VOY is more like 8.5/10.

Second reason is world building. Really there isn’t that much overlap as far as specific parts of the story is concerned, it’s more that DS9 is so great because it turns some things that are taken for granted on their heads. VOY is useful because it kind of goes into that direction a little bit, with the conflicts that necessarily arise on a small ship far from home, and because you literally just learn more about the world/universe, whatever you want to call it, and the more context you have the better DS9 gets.

Very minor spoiler, both shows feature conflicts with the Marquis and the contrast, as well as the lack of contrast on how these conflicts are handled is very interesting.

I would at least touch on VOY, it needs a bit to get going, just like TNG I suppose, but it’s solid. And the big, big payoff is watching DS9 after that. DS9 is fantastic, but it only gets better with the context from VOY and TNG.

We’ve seen this spiel a few times, companies want to move to the cloud and then don’t because it’s ridiculous and plenty of things are just fine on local machines.

I don’t lend this any more credence than all the “we’ll all be gaming in the cloud in 10 years” crap when stuff like GeForce Now was popping up.

Do you really think “woke” is synonymous with “gay” and “Jew”?

No. Are you a farmer with too much extra inventory or what? That seems like the best explanation for your army of shitty strawmen.

No, I don’t think that and I didn’t say that. I mention these as examples of other intolerant groups.

I don’t think your… questionable beliefs should impact my experience on kbin.social. I find myself wondering what other… unusual beliefs you harbour.

Ah yes, not providing a platform for hategroups is a “questionable belief” to you. Terribly sorry about that.

If banning a group called “antiwoke” is “impacting your experience” then feel free to be salty about it. You don’t have a place here then and I’m more than fine with that. Go be a shithead on the internet somewhere else, you’re not welcome.

Yes, in the same way I “don’t like” magazines called “antigay” and “antijews”.

Again, terribly sorry that I’m not going to be naive about it.

People joke about leopards eating people’s faces for a reason. We don’t have to act like these leopards eating people’s faces are worth letting in because this time they totally won’t eat people’s faces even if they have done that every single time they have been let in anywhere else.

Oh we’re replacing a shitty strawman with another one now?

Yes, congrats. If I repeatedly say they shouldn’t be given a platform that’s pretty much the same as me saying we should ban them.

That’s really not the point. The point is that you are trying to claim that I want to ban anyone who disagrees with me when what I am saying, also quite explicitly, that we should ban people who are intolerant. Those are certainly two circles in a Venn diagram with some overlap, but two seperate circles nevertheless, and I’m only advocating for one of them. (The intolerant one, just to be very clear.)

That’s literally what you wrote. It’s your entire premise:

No, what I actually wrote was

I’m sorry, but there is no need or benefit to be found in tolerance for the intolerant. Nobody has to give them a platform. Nobody should.

I already called you out for being dishonest in your argument, why continue? Address what I actually said instead of the shitty strawman you try and fail to create.

You don’t like the name of the magazine and you want it banned, even though it hasn’t broken any rules. You just don’t like what the name implies.

I’m not in the business in being naive about it, terribly sorry. Show me a community that labels itself as “antiwoke” that isn’t a racist cesspool and I’ll entertain the argument.

Believe it or not, ne neither!

But this is also not something I have said. This is a strawman argument you created, consciously or not.

What I actually said was that we shouldn’t provide a platform to the intolerant. Because they will seek to undermine and destroy our tolerance. There’s a bit more nuance in my argument than “ban people just because they disagree with me”. You kinda missed that.

I mean, Reddit very much controls who enters. Not so explicitly as to have a survey or something, but they very much have mechanisms against bots and people who try to circumvent bans for example.

I’m sorry, but there is no need or benefit to be found in tolerance for the intolerant. Nobody has to give them a platform. Nobody should. And if you seriously believe a community called “antiwoke” has anything positive or useful to bring to the table, I have a very nice bridge looking to get rid of.

Let’s not waste our breath pretending a place called “antiwoke” is anything but a racist right wing cesspool. There’s literally no other purpose it could serve.

And of course you have censorship on the internet. You need to censor, literally every platform out there that has existed for a reasonable amount of time on the internet has to censor even if it’s just to comply with local laws.

In other words, if you don’t censor you open up your doors to hosting child porn, it’s that simple. So I hope people can see that censorship is a necessary evil and not some binary choice you can make.

So the question is what you censor, not if you censor. And of course there will be things that people straight up don’t want. You don’t have to be accepting of everything. In fact it’s actively detrimental to be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

I’m not gonna blame anyone if they want to kick out communities like “antiwoke” because it’s quite clear what’s gonna come out of them.

You don’t die in one hit to most things unless you run with very low health and armor. That’s a solvable problem.

And while sometimes bonfires can be a bit far apart, especially in the earlier games, people also seem to forget that you can literally just run past enemies. That said, I think it’s part of the journey and the struggle. Dark Souls is basically a rythm game in a way and that takes experience. Basically, you don’t need to kill everything but it’s good exercise.

Also there has always been an “easy mode”, cheesy build and multiplayer. If you think the game is too hard, play different.

My best guess would be that the engine just has vast amounts of technical debt. Skyrim (pre-LE at least) had a savegame corruption bug that has been around since Morrowind. And while I’m sure they have rewritten huge parts of the engine over the decades it’s not rare to see bugs persist over generations, and modders complaining loudly about it. The engine has never been great about asset streaming either so no surprise here.

Dang, my thing was basically collecting cars and modifying them, only real reason to still play this. So I very much cars about all cars, even the “crappy” ones.

They could have just made another store to sell all the old stuff. Would still “streamline” things and take nothing away.

This looks really cool. SupCom wasn’t quite the same for me so I’ll have to check this out.

It’s basically the “secret” behind Windows compatibility and part of the reason ReactOS takes so long to develop.

I just wrote a post on duck game over here:

https://feddit.de/comment/222116

Play duck game!