Eskating cyclist, gamer and enjoyer of anime. Probably an artist. Also I code sometimes, pretty much just to mod titanfall 2 tho.

Introverted, yet I enjoy discussion to a fault.

  • 5 Posts
  • 198 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 13th, 2023

help-circle
  • Yes and no.

    If the goal is to have the best support for all future games, sure.

    But that’s not what protons main goal is.

    The main goal is to get all the hundreds of thousands of games that have already been made, to work.

    Making one game for linux, only produces one game.

    Getting proton right, gets every past game that has ever worked on windows, to work on linux.

    That a lot of future games will also work thanks to this, and hence require less work to run on linux, is a bonus. Not the main goal.

    Hence, proton is ABSOLUTELY worth it. Even if microsoft released directx 13 tomorrow, that wouldn’t break any of the games that already work. The alternative is to go back and port each game one at a time. Proton isn’t just happening instead of linux ports. It’s also happening instead of porting all old games, and enables running games with shuttered studios, unclear IP onwership, lost source code or lost interest.

    If you REALLY want appimages for archiving, the best way would be to package an individual game, a proton wrapper with all the dependencies, and compile that up into a neat appimage. Then you’d have a “future proof” executable file for that one game to keep and run in the future.

    But that’s ignoring the fact that appimages and flatpaks aren’t truly that agnostic. Changes in graphics APIs happen on linux, too.

    And it makes way more sense to use the same proton for multiple games, instead of bundling an extra copy of it with each game.


  • What?

    Laufey does a ton of things in the first two games, but none of it is posthumous action.

    The entire plot of the first two games can be boiled down to how a person who is dead and truly gone, can still be a huge presence in your life through the memories, places, and actions they undertook when they were alive.

    Everything we see are things she said and did before she died. Some of it is on a somewhat supernatural level due to her abilities as a giant, but unless I truly missed something, none of it “occurs” after she dies.

    In fact this entire new game (that Laufey is “alive” somewhere) directly contradicts what Kratos sees when he steps into the light of alfheim, basically confirming that’s where she (or what’s left of her) is.

    This is a retcon.


  • It would be both.

    They seem to be describing a potential defect in the correction that can occur, which causes “lens flares”, “blurring” or “smearing” of bright points of light. This is especially bad at night due to the contrast between lights and the darkness of the night.

    It’s similar to a the effect you get with a camera when there are scratches or dents in the lens surface, or if it’s greasy. Except it’s in your eye.


  • Eye surgeries always come with risk. When they go wrong, you can even end up with worse vision than before.

    If life is comfortable for you, I wouldn’t change anything.

    I’m not sure why the surgery wouldn’t help with near-sightedness. It modifies the shape of the lens in your eye, essentially applying correction directly to your body.

    How much can be done and in which direction, depends on the individual. As you’re essentially working with a subtractive tool (using a laser to remove stuff) to modify the optical material in your eye. You’re limited by the shape and amount of material in each persons eye in the first place, and you can’t make changes that would require adding material. As such, there is a maximum amount of correction that can be applied before you run out of usable material, and it varies from person to person.

    If more is neded beyond that limit, you will still need glasses.









  • It’s bleak, but I’m pretty sure we’re headed towards some form of collapse in terms of food production.

    Right now we’re fighting over fossil fuels and rare earth metals. Those are solvable problems, you can have civilization with none or just a small amount of these things, and renewable production will mean that you can have energy without needing fossil reserves or fissiles in your soil.

    But I think the next several decades are going to be defined by the international dealings that will occur over arable land, the resources and technology to keep it fertile, and the infrastructure and water sources to irrigate it. Up to and including wars.

    The simple fact is, farming is getting harder. For now, the technology is keeping up. Despite corporations in the relevant industries prioritizing profits and intellectual property over national food security.

    And even though there’s theoretically more than enough land on earth to feed all currently living humans, there are already individual countries with more people than what their land area can feed.

    Worse, there a countries who share the same sources of water, who are increasing their water use in ways that will cause droughts for their neighbours.





  • I think of them as on the same spectrum.

    A thin skinned person, is someone when you stab verbally or try to otherwise harm them in a non-physical manner, it goes straight through, and they are hurt by it. It affects their confidence, behaviour and health.

    A thick skinned person, is someone you can insult, and they can dismiss the meaning of the words, and be unaffected by the intended harm.

    But that is not mutually exclusive with going “wtf, did you just try to stab me?”. They are opposites, in the sense that the word describes whether malicious words or actions can “pass through” and have the intended effect.

    But if someone tries to shoot me, and I’m wearing armor that means it won’t kill me, that still leaves the fact that they tried to shoot me. That I was able to survive it does not make the attempt on my life ok. Being thick skinned, or “wearing armor”, doesn’t mean you react to attacks with inaction.

    It describes whether you suffer harm when under fire. Not how you behave in reaction to it.

    A lot of people think of being thick skinned as synonymous with turning the other cheek. But being able to take BS doesn’t mean you have to passively allow it.


  • You don’t sound thin skinned.

    Having a thick skin doesn’t mean being unbothered by people trying to walk over you, and thereby letting them.

    I get accused of being thinskinned sometimes because of starting a confrontation over a problem or behaviour I’ve noticed, but that makes no sense. Being sensitive to issues is not a weakness, and being numb to them is certainly not a strength.

    I can push for change precisely because I’m unbothered by the stress of working against the status quo.

    But like others said, you don’t always need to convince. If you say you won’t cover a task because it’s not your responsibility, then there is nothing to discuss. If they expect a task to be done even when you said it won’t, that is not your problem.

    It’s theirs.