I respect that he burned a giant hole in Konami’s pocket and tried his best to block them off at each turn.
Then they fired him before the game was finished and released Metal Gear Survive lol.
Also respect that he made a fucking AAA hiking delivery game, with fucking jar-babies, and Princess Beach.
The classic example is email; Imagine if you could only email people on Outlook, from another Outlook account. It’s intuitive how shitty that would be, but for some reason we give social media a free pass for doing exactly this.
The benefits are (analogously):
What part of my argument do you find philosophically incorrect?
I dont care whether ‘evil’ is prevented, I care whether undue suffering could be prevented.
If the bar is so high, that God’s only obligation is preventing Cthulhu from fucking out butts, then he’s just as much of a cunt as squid-daddy.
As mentioned in my post, in response to people falling for the naturalistic fallacy: “So what? Who gives a shit?”
Whether it’s natural or not is simply the wrong metric by which to evaluate whether someone has a right to exist or be treated with dignity.
It’s akin to someone saying to you after you’ve dyed your hair, “that’s not natural,” and then you scramble to insist that it is.
The right response is: “So what? Who gives a shit?”
Also: how do you read this and think I’m anything but an ally? I’m explicitly advocating for compassion, dignity, and equal rights for trans people. Pushing back on bad reasoning doesn’t contradict that; it strengthens it.
If your definition of “ally” means I’m required to accept weak arguments without criticism, then you don’t want allies. You want sycophants. And I’m not signing up for that.
I’m not interested in moral purity contests where allyship is contingent on uncritical agreement.
I’m going to be that guy, and no, this isn’t a gotcha. I’m a trans ally. I support the existence, rights, and dignity of trans people. But I’m allergic to lazy thinking; even from my own side.
“Trans people are natural.” Cool sentiment. Terrible framing.
First off, “natural” is a word people use when they’ve run out of real arguments. It’s vague, emotionally loaded, and epistemologically useless.
Plenty of things are “natural”: cancer, infanticide, parasites, sexual coercion. Doesn’t make them desirable. Doesn’t make them moral. If you want to make a moral case for something, do it without the crutch of nature.
Second, let’s talk about optics. When you say “trans people are natural,” you’re not helping. You’re feeding into the exact framework used against queer and trans people for decades; the idea that something has to be “natural” to be valid.
Why are we reinforcing that standard? Why are we bending over backwards to find a species of fish that flips sexes and pretending that proves anything about human gender identity?
Transgender identity is not “natural” in the biological sense. There’s no mammalian precedent for someone born male socially transitioning to live as female with a nuanced internal experience of gender. That’s not how “natural” animal behavior works. But so what? Who gives a shit?
Being trans is a human phenomenon; emergent from consciousness, culture, language, and self-reflection. You know, all the “unnatural” stuff that makes humans interesting. The wheel isn’t natural. The internet isn’t natural. Civil rights aren’t natural.
Trans people don’t need to be validated by nature. They need to be validated by ethics. By compassion. By rational moral reasoning.
So let’s stop appealing to nature. It’s weak, it’s misleading, and it sets the movement back by anchoring it to bad philosophy.
IMO, look into the linuxserver.io fork of NGINX, called SWAG.
It comes preloaded with a bunch of fantastic addons for security.
Quite easy to get set up, if you’ve got an idea about how it works.
The Mr. Plinkett cat.
You’re erring on the side of caution, and I get the impulse. But there’s a fine line between giving voice to the unheard and drowning out the current conversation by crusading on their behalf without actually checking whether they wanted a champion in the first place.
Language isn’t static, and if people who would’ve been the target of a slur no longer feel targeted by a modern, benign use of the word, maybe it’s worth listening to them instead of getting stuck in etymological guilt.
This is essentially justification for tone policing, language gate keeping, or inventing offenses that marginalized groups themselves aren’t actually calling out.
Campaigning on their behalf looks less like allyship and more like self-importance wrapped in a savior complex.
“The pejorative nature kind of got lost somewhere along the way.”
Not according to some, who I’m surprised havent descended into this comment section yet.
It genuinely amazes me that some people learn of a racist origin and immediately crusade against it, on behalf of people who dont give a fuck.
Words change. When the majority of people are using a phrase in a benign manner, then dragging the racist origins back into the light is a really dumb way to fight against bigotry.
Guilt tripping people into adapting new phrasing isn’t just arrogant and patronizing; it’s counterproductive - it makes the actual fight against racism seem petty and performative.
I can’t tolerate not calling them drug holidays.
How many years have you been taking it?
Yeah, you’re the guy on the left, for a few months… Then it becomes normal, and then you up your dosage, until you hit 70mg of Vyvanse daily, and need to take drug holidays just so they work well enough, not to look like the guy on the right.
NixOS Impermanence, Everywhere, All at Once (2022)
Minewhile, NixOS:
“Nice try buddy, now step the fuck away from my read-only file system before I put my flake in your ass”
Fair assessment. Though I didnt go as far as to assert that it ‘was’ all bullshit - and is the reason I prefaced my comment with an admission of ignorance.
In any case, I’m convinced that my friend was not doing it right, either by his own failure to understand, or the lack of adequate instruction during guided meditation, because he didnt seem to have any meaningful insight into his own mind - beyond having a better imagination, which I suppose does translate to a more creative mind in general.
In addition, he didnt comprehend the idea of being able to ‘drop in’ to a meditative state when not actively practicing. After introducing him to mindfulness, he found it far more insightful and beneficial in general.
I talk like a guy who read a pop psychology book? That’s very judgmental. I did my best to articulate my thoughts and you arrogantly claim your own response is better, even though the court of public opinion regards my explanation as preferable.
You claim meditation is helpful for focusing attention, but this reply is the first which isnt riddled with grammatical or structural errors. You dont need flowery language to describe your sensations.
As for the dichotomy between drugs and meditation, it all depends what metric you’re evaluating. The ones aforementioned in my comment (which you’ve reduced to ‘getting high’) are the metrics I’ve used, but doesn’t encompass the entire spectrum of drug use. There are ways to compare them, and way they’re different - it’s a very narrow perspective to simply claim that one is just a more extreme version, or that the other is ‘better’.
TLDR: the checkbox for “enable proton for all other titles” is forced on, and hidden.
If you already have this enabled, there’s nothing to gain from the beta client.