I remember the very strange control scheme it had on PS4 I think it was? You couldn’t bind your abilities to any button, just specific combinations like Square+Left, but not Square+Right, something like that. I wonder if they’ve changed that in the newer ones.

I only just found out about it and wanted to share since I havent heard any dicussion around this style of game. It looks fun, but I havent had a chance to sink much time into it.

I really appreciate you linking studies about this topic, as finding this kind of research can be daunting. Those looks like really interesting reads.

Is a cis-gendered woman who had a hysterectomy, not a woman?

Is anyone who doesn’t have bottom surgery a woman? Is a man who takes testosterone pills for erectile dysfunction, a woman?

A post-menopausal grandmother is not a woman? A flat chested woman, is not a woman? A woman born without a uterus is not a woman?

Please define what a woman is, without excluding any cis-gendered women.

The Venn diagram of game developers, who are also interested in/good at running a business has very little overlap. You need many different kinds of people to run a business, but a game developers is only one of those. In some rare cases it works out though.

Would you consider a boycott a form of protest? There are many ways to show disapproval, and marching in the streets is only one of them.

What is the difference between “religious fairness testing” and protesting? Is a protest not just an active resistance to the current legal status quo? How is a lawsuit not a protest?

My experience around any opinion where there is a default option, the vast majority will accept the default without thinking. Then when presented with an alternative by someone who has actively chosen to not chose the default, people become highly defensive as if they did do their due diligence, whether or not they actually did. Depending on where you live, the defaults change, but being that humans are tribal, differences in lifestyle naturally create friction. In parts of America, you drive an SUV, use an iPhone, and eat meat. Whether or not they actively or passively chose that lifestyle, when someone doesn’t conform to what is expected there will be friction. How people react to that friction is up to them, but again, the default is to be critical of them and encourage conformity.

Yes there is precedent because in those cases you need a unique address historically. Evener commit within the project needs a unique hash for as long as the project exists. However, a unique address needs to be unique for the time it is being used.

George Washington needs to have his commit to the Linux kernel maintained, but we don’t need to keep his phone number locked away forever. He can’t use that phone number anymore, so someone else can have it. IPv6 is more than enough address space, so long as the dead don’t need to keep their 2 billion addresses for themselves.

IPv6 has a maximum number of addresses of 2^64, or 18,446,744,073,709,551,616. Enough addresses that all 9 billion people on earth could each own 2 billion unique address. A theoretical IPv32 is wholly unnecessary for a very very long time.

So computers can share IP’s then right? By your example they are sharing their public IP. From the perspective of the server you are connecting to, all the machines on your LAN have the same IP. Same way multiple physical phones can be connected to a single landline, all those phones share the same number.

That’s sorta the curse of an open protocol is that anyone, even your enemies, can use them. I am no fan of Meta. I am a big fan of open standards, monkey’s paw and all. It is not a case of tolerating the intolerant. To restrict Meta out of using ActivityPub is against the spirit of open standards. The protocol is no longer open, and THEN we really have something to worry about.

Don’t worry I’ve been quoted EEE enough times. I really don’t think that is the direction this will go down. If Meta actually embraces it, then the whole of the fediverse grows over all. Then, if Meta does extend the ActivityPib protocol in a way the that becomes incompatible with the rest of the ecosystem, we just let them go and do their own thing. ActivityPub already has a userbase, if they join us, and then later on cause problems then everything just goes back to how it is right now. The final E can’t realistically happen because the existing ecosystem will just carry on exactly as it is now. If people on Threads want to communicate with us, then they need to speak the same protocol. If they don’t, then they don’t get to participate.

Do you genuinely believe that the whole community of the fediverse would just lie down and accept breaking changes to the protocol without resistance? There are too many talented and passionate people invested in this ecosystem, the absolute worst case scenario is the protocol itself gets forked, and again the exist communities just carry on. There is no extinguish time line. Everyone points to how Meta handled XMPP, please compare the user bases of ActivityPub vs XMPP. The world has changed a lot since then. Another example I’d like to point out is Hashicorp’s Terraform. They explicitly tried to EEE, and the moment they attempted the final E, it was instantly forked, and the open licensed fork was adopted into the Linux Foundation and the ecosystem carried on.

Take that what you will, but I am reasonably convinced ActivityPub has enough support and community that any EEE attempt will inevitably fail. The front ends will change, the hosters will come and go, the open standard is here to stay.

What do you mean by Mastodon selling out to Meta? Isn’t Meta just building an ActivityPub based platform so we can talk to their users as far as I know. If they want to talk to us, then the onus is on Meta to stay compatible. If they aren’t, then we just continue on as we have.

100% agree. Universal Basic Income feels inevitable as a solution. Better and better technology puts machines in place of human labor, with no guarantee that other jobs will come into existence to replace the ones lost. Is it not the ideal goal to have machines do all labor, leaving humans to do what they actually want without fear of homelessness and starvation.

It just kinda sucks right now because these systems don’t exist to support this changing landscape.

Which is exactly the same as how there were no new jobs for horses created. Employment is not a right. You have to either adapt with the changing times, or become unemployed. I agree that it sucks.

Improvements in technology do not guarantee employment for tradespeople of current technology. A whole lot of horses became unemployed when cars became ubiquitous. I’d say the improvement of cars to society is worth the loss of employment to all those who maintained the horse’s infrastructure. Like all those manufacturing jobs lost from the improvement in machines, professional creatives must adapt to the times, or seek other forms of work. No different than any other job in all of history.