📛Maven

Splatoon 1 let you play five different minigames on the wii u pad, including a pretty solid rhythm game, while waiting, nothing else has come close for me

Is it chilling? I was already going to stay where I am, whether I made a copy or not. Sharding off a replica to go on for me would be strictly better than not doing that

But like… do I care? “I” will survive, even if I’m not the one who does the surviving.

Surely they mean entirety as in “the entire monthly player numbers of every game on steam”, not “the quantity of accounts that’ve ever been created”

No, you see, you just get every citizen to pay a little bit into the bridge, and then everyone can use it. Maybe we put some of that money aside and establish a group of people to care for the bridge, upkeep and whatnot. It wouldn’t be fair to just pick them arbitrarily, so we should probably hold some kind of vote. And, well, I guess the money will run out, so maybe we take a little more from everyone every year, just to keep it in good shape

Huh? That sounds like what? Gov–

Oh fuck wait shit i mean DONT TREAD ON ME

More like cope pilot.

Epochalypse…

It’s hardly nitpicking. It’s the foundation of the entire first paragraph.

My point is that you implied it’s that the game industry isn’t putting out demos. “The occasional game here and there every other year or so”. But that’s a false statement, the lack of demos in your life is your own doing

And even if they don’t have a demo, Steam’s refund system makes basically any game a demo; since you can refund for any reason in the first 2 hours, you can play the first ~90 minutes for free

I know the occasional game has released a demo here and there every other year or so, but I think I remember the last demo I played was Skate 3’s back in 2010.

That’s… pretty on-you, I have to say. Something like 2/3 of my gaming time is free demos off steam or the nintendo eshop. Steam just had their yearly Next Fest, with over 900 games dropping demos this month.

“32gb of RAM is a week’s worth of groceries”

I mean, the premise was “vindictive or mean editors who ‘own’ pages and refuse to allow changes to ‘their’ article”. The goodness or badness of the edits are not in question; there are editors who camp a page and find technicalities to revert anything that isn’t theirs or that they don’t like. Sometimes they don’t even find technicalities, they just do it, relying on their own reputation and your ignorance. The fact that one has to learn to do an end run around them and engage in wiki politics, hell, essentially learn an entire second legal system, to “have the truth prevail” for even a minor fact with citation is exhausting. It filters out good potential editors who nonetheless have no time to engage in the behind-the-scenes drama proceedings. It’s not like this hasn’t been a known issue for years now.

Aggregating a biased list of sources is worse than not aggregating at all. I would rather someone not know a story at all than they know one side of it as “the truth”

Often, collecting and correlating sources that agree with one viewpoint of a complex issue, which is the whole problem we were discussing. If a wiki article is camped by an admin with a slant, as they often are, the sources do not represent some neutral middle ground or wisdom of the crowd, they represent the things that ended up in the article and nothing more. If you want to learn the facts of a controversial topic, why would you start with a potentially biased list?

Okay, but like, places like AP and Reuters are right there and free. If someone’s thirsty, you shouldn’t point them at a dirty puddle because it’s better than sewage, you should turn the faucet on.

See, it sounds like that’s another way of saying “If you don’t have a ton of spare time and nothing better to do with it, don’t even try to edit Wikipedia”

In this case, the primary relevant fact checking skill would be searching for sources independent of Wikipedia, in which case, why was one starting with Wikipedia in the first place?

A wikipedia sources list is not some sort of list of all available data on a subject. It’s a list of what information was used to build the article.

On anything remotely divisive, there will be available primary sources for multiple viewpoints, and obviously a slanted article will largely contain sources supporting its slant and leave out sources that don’t. Just checking the sources can easily result in the illusion of consensus where there is none.

God, they even want to make leisure time into a side hustle. Is it so much to ask that they let me not think about my participation in capital for like, two hours?