mycodesucks

mycodesucks , 5 days ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhbvnIEMxSA

mycodesucks , 5 days ago

It's easy to say that when you're an outside party who doesn't understand or care about the underlying issues. Not to minimize the issue with the metaphor, but have you ever fought with a sibling or someone else at school and your disinterested parent our authority figure told you to both to stop without addressing any of either of your underlying problems? How well did it work?

Pretending that "just stop it" deals with the realities of a complex history of real grievances and legitimate causes for anger and retribution on both sides is the most magical of magical thinking, and it doesn't help that third party negotiators usually start their peace proceedings by learning NOTHING about the history of distrust and anger building up over decades, picking a side to ride or die with, and then declaring the issue fixed as soon as someone signs an agreement.

mycodesucks , 7 days ago

Even non-Americans understand.

mycodesucks , 8 days ago

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/9ba8770d-76f9-40d4-99aa-ad923ef810dd.jpeg

mycodesucks , 9 days ago

This is the latest stupid trend.

Even the BBQ restaurants are getting in on it.

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/63436be6-4cfb-4ea0-b188-fa8fc0ea9714.png

mycodesucks , 8 days ago

Clearly they're the natural bone of the sausage meat. Just the way it comes when you pluck it off the meat animal.

mycodesucks , 10 days ago

Not that I don't believe what's being said here, but can anybody who speaks Hebrew confirm the subtitles are accurate translations?

mycodesucks , 10 days ago

I think with the original source being verified, that's good enough to check. Thanks for identifying it. Much appreciated.

mycodesucks , 10 days ago

But hey, at least they're compatible with Windows 11, right?

/s

mycodesucks , 11 days ago

No, it makes sense to not release AT ALL in those areas if you knew from the beginning they were going to lose the ability to play. This is indefensible.

mycodesucks , 11 days ago

It seems like it has been listed as a requirement on the store page since launch, although Steam's age check breaks the wayback machine. If it's true, that means they knew this was coming. They still allowed it to be sold, probably maliciously in the intent of building out a player base to improve the buzz of the game early, and making a few bucks with the intent of then hoping the affected users would be too few to make a stink when the change was made. The bigger player base at the start allowed the game to build a following in a way that would've been harder with a release limited to PSN countries.

Every single thing points to this being an intentional, nasty, anti-consumer decision. Best case scenario the angry customers would've been few and it wouldn't have mattered, worst case scenario would be exactly what's happening now, but this was factored in. Most customers will just create a PSN account and continue playing, and let's say refunds go to 90% of the players in non-PSN countries and 10% of PSN country players demand refunds in solidarity... The remaining 90% of PSN country players + the 10% of non-PSN country players that are leaving their money behind is likely still more money than they would've had if they had launched it with the PSN requirement enforced. Regardless of how this shakes out, Sony is going to come out the other end of this with more money than they would have had by limiting it from the start - not everyone is going to request a refund... and those that don't? That's free money for Sony they never would've had.

Is it POSSIBLE it's just a tone-deaf decision they didn't think through completely? Sure. Do I think it's likely, given the size of the company and the way modern big game companies squeeze and manipulate customers with a callousness bordering on disdain? I wouldn't put my money on it.

mycodesucks , 11 days ago

I don't know about that. It's too good for them. They gained a LOT by this. Refunds don't mean anything to them - even in the worst case scenario they're still not paying back as much as they made. They made out from this decision. I think they know exactly what they're doing.

mycodesucks , 11 days ago

You are applying a standard to the game that applies to YOU. Other players who are currently playing a game do not care that you are finished playing the game. They are not. The game did not ship with a 3 month subscription plan. It shipped as a sold product. Your analogy is like an all-you-can-eat buffet where after twenty minutes they close it down and make everyone stop eating, and your argument is, "Well, I'M full. It's fine."

mycodesucks , 11 days ago (edited 11 days ago)

This is Sony's decision. It is a material change to the product that was sold. It is not the same as a patch or a nerf. It has rendered the product unplayable. Yes, you can make the argument that it was listed on the page from the beginning that an account was required, but it is also the case that EULAs are actually not legally binding contracts. Sony has made a unilateral decision, and as a result it does not matter whether a person is finished with the game or not. This is a change to the actual contract, which was the purchase of a game to use in perpetuity for the length of time that it is available on steam. Sony has made this decision, customers don't have to justify the reason that they don't like the change. It is a change. They are counting on people letting it slide, because most of the time that is how businesses do business.

Also, you should really stop standing up for giant corporations. Sony doesn't need your help. They have teams of lawyers whose job it is to argue with valve over whether they need to give refunds. They may also end up having to deal with class action lawsuits, and potential legal issues with 177 countries which may have completely different laws of consumer protection than the US. That is not your responsibility.

Besides, one of the pillars of capitalism is rational self-interest, and that goes both ways, not just in the business side. If you can get a refund for something because a company has made a bad decision about how they do their business, why do you care about whether it's fair or not to the company? They sure don't care about whether it's fair to you. Are you a Sony lawyer? Are you the "be nice to big companies police"? Let Sony and Valve, and possibly the court system, worry about what their legal obligations are, and you worry about your personal decision of whether you are going to take advantage of your legal rights. Don't start judging whether others should or shouldn't do the same.

mycodesucks , 16 days ago

Maybe the Saudi investors who own him have finally called in the favor and told him it's time to put an end to the EV transition...

mycodesucks , 16 days ago

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/c7dbfeea-3f1f-4387-aa49-42f79ca46556.png

mycodesucks , 17 days ago

Polnareff?

mycodesucks , 21 days ago

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the Czech Republic, where apparently holding up a single index finger means 2.

mycodesucks , 21 days ago

I was only there a month. I can't claim to be any kind of expert. But I do know I wound up eating two sausages.

mycodesucks , 18 days ago

Fascinating. Didn't know that!

mycodesucks , 23 days ago

Okay, maybe this is true.

It's also possible you're talking to someone in the long tail of that bell curve who is already taking care of themselves. You are making a lot of assumptions and your attempt to push responsibility onto him when he may in fact be in the lowest percent of that bell curve, and if he is, your well-intentioned controversial opinion is like throwing salt in his wounds.

People always just assume they can do this with this problem. If someone has mental health issues, they tell them to seek help. If someone has physical issues, they tell them to see a doctor. If they have relationship issues, "Oh, it's all your fault, man. Work on yourself." even in the absence of ANY evidence.

I know it's uncomfortable to think about the people in that bottom 1% of the bell curve who are completely helpless and overwhelmed, but victim blaming isn't a good way to deal with it.

mycodesucks , 23 days ago (edited 23 days ago)

All I'm saying is, when people post these kinds of things, they're likely not looking for platitudes or advice. If they wanted that, the title of the post would've been "someone help me". It's okay to let people vent about a situation that sucks for them without telling them all of the things you think they should be doing differently.

mycodesucks , 23 days ago

I suppose that's a fair point. I can't make the claim I know that.

mycodesucks OP , 23 days ago

I don't know... is real-life Guinan even aware the interaction with Nexus Guinan happened?

mycodesucks , 25 days ago (edited 25 days ago)

Absolutely right. Your time at 40 when you've got responsibilities, a full-time job (or two), TIME ITSELF is going more quickly for you, and you have generally less energy is NOT the same as when you're young and have more or less limitless capacity for this kind of thing.

Although it's a popular sentiment among 20 year olds who think their energy is going to last forever, or 30 year olds who have good enough genes where they're not slowing down yet.

That's not to say it's impossible. Some people can do it. But the number of people with that energy drops PRECIPITOUSLY with age.

But it's nice of the wholesome comic to tell you that if you're getting older, and your energy is reducing like every single generation of humans in the history of time, and you don't have the capacity or energy left to do everything you want, that's a personal failing and it's your fault and you should feel shame.

mycodesucks , 24 days ago

While that point is valid, identifying it doesn't make that pressure go away. If the idea is "You'd have plenty of energy to learn guitar if you just shun all of your responsibilities and sacrifice the already precarious stability of your life for more free time/start a revolution and restructure the entire nature of society", then I don't disagree, but you're talking about something way more substantial and difficult than a flippant comic strip implying it's an easy matter of "just doing it."

mycodesucks , 24 days ago

Sometimes, sure. not always. If you happen to have spent the past few decades doing something with relevance to the new skill you're planning to work on, of course that's going to contribute to your ability to learn that thing now. But that's a nice coincidence, not a general improvement in ability to obtain new skills with age.

In the case of learning guitar, if I spent the past 25 years working in real-estate, for example, unless I coincidentally spent a lot of free time doing things that increased my hand dexterity, coordination, built up callouses, etc, I haven't really made any more progress towards that goal than I would've had at 9 years old, and furthermore in a very real sense 25 years of life plus my age have contributed just as much in ingraining irrelevant and sometimes contradictory knowledge and skills into an increasingly inelastic mind in such a way that if my life experiences contribute more than hinder my learning at that age, I'd consider it a happy accident more than a natural benefit.

mycodesucks , 24 days ago

Sure. Lifetime learning is extremely valuable and a great way to spend time. But there's a huge difference between building out new skills in areas you already have expertise and ability or loosely connected areas, and starting something completely new where you have very little training or knowledge. I can sit and learn new programming languages all day, and that is learning, and my prior experience is incredibly useful in doing that. But if I were to pick up a guitar, or a paintbrush, or start a gymnastics class? The idea that I can learn these things from essentially zero with even CLOSE to the proficiency of a young person is extremely wishful thinking, and it isn't unreasonable that at an advanced age, the amount of time and energy I can put into it will never yield results I'd consider satisfactory. My point is, there's nothing wrong or defeatist about saying "This is no longer a reasonable goal for me", and the comic's implication that it's a mental weakness is condescending and simplistic.

mycodesucks , 24 days ago

At that point it does depend on your goals. I have always wanted to play jazz piano, but it is absolutely impossible at my age to reach a level of proficiency that would satisfy me. Taking on the learning would be pouring a woefully insufficient amount of free time into an effort that at my advanced age would yield INCREDIBLY slow process only to be continually frustrated for the effort.

If my goal were to just play around with it and have fun? Sure. But this comic's protagonist is lamenting the loss of DECADES of experience. He's not looking to strum a guitar in his free time. He's looking for real proficiency. And there is no shame in his acknowledging that at some point, you are old enough where it is no longer realistically achievable.

mycodesucks , 24 days ago

The idea that realistically acknowledging that at a certain age certain pursuits are no longer realistic is defeatist or a personal failing is toxic. I absolutely applaud anybody who decides they are actually going to take a new hobby at an advanced age. That's fantastic and I wish them the best of luck. But the idea that NOT doing so and acknowledging that being older DOES impact your ability to do new things puts needless shame onto people for being realistic about age and ability. It's ABSOLUTELY okay, and I'd even say brave, to accept the limitations of one's abilities due to age, and yes, it is toxic to turn around and say, indirectly, "Gee, I guess you're just a weak-minded quitter."

mycodesucks , 24 days ago

I agree, but the implication of the comic is that the man is somehow being contradictory or incorrect in thinking it is too late to start learning. Perhaps not, but there is nothing shameful or inconsistent about his assertion that it's too late now. There ARE legitimate and concerning differences between starting at his age and starting in youth.

mycodesucks , 24 days ago (edited 24 days ago)

I'm not saying that it's impossible or even a bad idea for someone to take on a new hobby late in life. I absolutely applaud anybody who does so. What I'm objecting to is the implication that there's something inconsistent or shameful about this guy's claim that he's too old. There isn't. There's a world of difference between starting young and starting older, and there's no shame or failing in his view - certainly not enough to be the punchline of a comic.

Is it brave and empowering to start a new hobby in advanced age? Absolutely. Is it also brave to acknowledge the limitations of one's advanced age and accept the time for some things have passed? Yes.

mycodesucks , 24 days ago

Fair.

mycodesucks , 24 days ago

See, that's the thing though. That's not the worst case scenario. The worst case scenario is while I'm doing that I'm forgoing time and energy that is so limited now and could be better spent spending time with my family, or keeping up with housework, or even just resting to prepare for the job that makes everything else possible. For many people, especially as their energy reduces over time, the sheer number of demands that come with age do not provide for "what the heck, let's try it" with any regularity. I appreciate the thought, but when capacity is limited everything comes with an opportunity cost.

mycodesucks , 26 days ago

What is going on in the reflection? Is that thermostat headed to orbit?

mycodesucks , 28 days ago

This captcha actually works perfectly because Odo isn't human.

mycodesucks , 28 days ago

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/4864dbf3-7e30-4502-bd18-923cbd20ba8a.gif

mycodesucks , 29 days ago

Honestly, caution about this kind of scam online needs to be part of education from an early age in the modern world. You simply can't trust young kids to figure things out on their own when the stakes are potentially this high. Yes, you should be immediately suspicious at a private message out of the blue from someone you don't know. Always assume the worst. Sure, it's an incredibly harsh worldview, but it's no different than the "never talk to strangers" we already teach.

mycodesucks , 1 month ago

Username checks out

mycodesucks , 1 month ago

Rasmussen polls always tilt a few points slightly Republican for some reason. It's not necessarily malicious, but something in their methodology.

mycodesucks , 1 month ago

This is a flagrantly disingenous comparison. The creation of Starfleet Academy and focusing on a new view with new characters in an area that we know deals with these things is no where nearly comparable as taking a pre-established moment and playing it in a different tone completely. The existence of this show does not undermine or overwrite the tone of any other show like you’re suggesting with that comparison.

It's possible I wasn't clear here. I'm not suggesting changing the tone of it as it already exists, but that if its original tone had been different the entire tone of the film and the universe would have been completely different as well. And while I agree that Star Trek has often had many different tones over the course of all the series and media, it's one thing to have a tone for a particular episode or two parter, and another to have such a drastically different tone for an entire series. Additionally, while we DO explore Wesley's situation at Starfleet academy, and other aspects of younger Starfleet cadets in episodes like the DS9 episode where a ship is entirely staffed by cadets, it's still usually viewed not primarily through their eyes, but through the eyes of the established crew, keeping the tone of the series consistent overall. This is very different than say, hypothetically, changing gears in season 6 of TNG and deciding to make Wesley the main character.

That said, the TNG episode Lower Decks handles this idea extraordinarily well, so it's entirely possible the entire thing will work and be fine. But it's also equally possible it could be such a drastic tonal shift that it does not. I don't see it as unreasonable or overreacting for longtime fans to, sight unseen given the scant information we DO know, view it with wariness.

mycodesucks , 1 month ago

But like I said, why do all of those other shows get a pass but suddenly Starfleet Academy is such a problem?

I don't know if it's necessarily that they get a pass. As you said, Enterprise was very poorly received by many fans, and that's more or less directly attributable at least in part to its different tone. The other series have their naysayers too, although not necessarily on a tonal basis. It's easy for us to look back now with the benefit of hindsight and say what worked and what didn't. So I guess the question is, we live in an era now where we get more information about what is coming that we have ever had before. When Enterprise launched, it was more or less a black box to the fans until it was actually on the air. If we had known in advance the writers/directors' intent about Enterprise's tone while it was in production, and voiced concern, could the final product have been altered into a version of the show that would've succeeded better? We can't know now, of course, but we're in this situation with Starfleet Academy, and if there's enough gut feeling that there's potential for it to be handled badly, a cautious approach might be warranted. Being left in the production's hands WITHOUT fan feedback on potential tonal shifts HAS backfired on trek shows before.

Again, the person I was originally responding to was not showing a basic concern. It was outright gatekeeping and a very different thing than what we’re currently discussing.

Fair enough.

mycodesucks , 1 month ago

A totally valid point of view.

But it's also a valid point of view to point out that in spite of its fans, Enterprise was still canceled. And shows in the franchise being killed off frequently due to unsustainable interest is ultimately not good for the franchise as a whole, regardless of individual interest in particular iterations. The ultimate fear is that such a wide range of tones attempting to capture different audiences ultimately results in none of them capturing enough of an audience to justify their existence, and then the whole franchise gets written off for another dry spell like we had post-Enterprise. That's not good for anyone.

mycodesucks , 1 month ago (edited 1 month ago)

That’s a gatekeepers argument.

I'm not saying that IS what's going to happen. Please don't put words in my mouth. But to say there is ZERO concern that it CAN happen is to ignore a very realistic scenario.

You're right, I'm not a part of the target demographic. But that's not point. The point is if that demographic wants what is being offered. Sure, this is targeted at them, but is their audience out there asking for this? If there is an audience, absolutely, they should have the show they want.

I'm not ignoring that there have been varied tones in various Trek shows. I am however, pointing out that not all of those tones have been successful, and that's a cause for concern. Star Trek isn't some public domain franchise that can be picked up at any time by anyone, Paramount's begrudging allowance for fan projects not withstanding. The success of the franchise and the ability to keep new Trek coming depends on the success of the series that are produced. If a series cannot sustain an audience, it hurts the viability of the franchise as a whole in the eyes of the people who fund production, and that is a legitimate concern.

But while I don't know that there is a teenage Star Trek audience looking for a show targeted at them, I KNOW there is an audience looking for the tone of the older Star Trek show tones because they are vocally and visibly looking for it right now.

I'm not arguing a Star Trek show targeted to teenagers shouldn't exist because I don't want it. That's a nonsense argument. I'm arguing the simple reality that there are limited resources for producing these shows, and Paramount is the only company that gets to make them. This is not some projected negativity - this is simple reality. And for all the idealized, lofty goals there are, if they don't establish and keep an audience, Paramount will shut them down. It's not gatekeeping to suggest building an audience where one doesn't exist yet is harder than keeping an existing one, and it's a gamble with the future of the franchise to paint such a wide target, particularly without an anchor series that you can point to and say "This is the secure flagship series we're building these other series around." That doesn't exist. Every single one of the current series is in a precarious position. That is a cause for concern.

Also, on a side note, I would like to point out that many of us became Star Trek fans during the TNG/DS9/Voyager era, and we were teenagers then. Those shows were not specifically targeted at us, but they still captured our imagination and won us over. A show doesn't have to be about teenagers to appeal to teenagers. Again, this is not to say this SHOULDN'T exist, but you are making it sound like the idea that thinking Paramount could focus their efforts elsewhere instead is somehow an attack on teenagers, and some form of discrimination. I assure you, that is not my intent, and I don't think it's anybody else's either. There are lots of reasons to be concerned this is not the right path, or that it might not succeed, other than having some kind of agenda against the young.

I see your last response to me as a bit of an overreaction, but regardless, it's your opinion and you're entitled to it. I apologize for allowing it to overcome me and overreacting myself to make this response seem overly hostile, but at the end of the day it certainly sounds like there is no argument that could be made to you that would legitimize someone's concern that Starfleet Academy might not be the right path for the franchise to take, and if that's the case, you're right that there's no point in continuing the discussion. I hope you continue to enjoy the franchise we love and wish you the best, regardless.

Goodbye.

mycodesucks OP , 1 month ago

Delightfully devilishly hot, Seymour.