rwhitisissle

joined 1 year ago
[–] rwhitisissle@lemmy.ml 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I'm not criticizing the choice of C++. I just don't want to look at the code because I don't personally like the language.

[–] rwhitisissle@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Languages: C++

Yeah, hard pass on looking at that code base.

[–] rwhitisissle@lemmy.ml 30 points 4 months ago

Alpine Linux users are in shambles.

[–] rwhitisissle@lemmy.ml 4 points 4 months ago (5 children)

If we're going fictional characters, then Havelock Vetinari from the Discworld novels.

[–] rwhitisissle@lemmy.ml 29 points 4 months ago (12 children)

As someone who has done a lot of distro hopping in the past, I've found that going for a stable release that is widely used as a daily driver is superior for gaming than "gaming specific" linux distros, largely on the basis that the gaming distros have routinely had buggy UIs, driver issues, and a variety of unexpected and undesired behavioral problems tied to the array of "gaming adjacent" software installed, most of which you can install yourself with little to no effort and most of which you probably don't want or need in the first place.

[–] rwhitisissle@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

The coalition of the ascendant concept is kind of insane when you remember for a moment that the popular vote is kinda worthless in winning elections. The electoral college is structured in such a way that conservative whites have a larger share of the electorate relative to their minority peers. It doesn't matter if you're a lock for California and New York (enclaves of coastal elites and minorities alike) if you lose the entirety of the South, Southwest, and Midwest, enclaves of...the opposite of those things, really. This 538 article on it has links to other discussions related to this and represents a fascinating look into the relationship between popular votes and electoral votes. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-a-difference-2-percentage-points-makes/

[–] rwhitisissle@lemmy.ml 36 points 4 months ago (5 children)

Democrats suffer from a condition that I've come to call "Democratic Realism," named after Capitalist Realism. No matter how much they get their shit kicked in. No matter how badly they do. No matter how little they accomplish. No matter how badly they look or do in debates. Democrats always believe, beyond a shred of doubt, that they'll win elections without trying. Not because of their own merits, but because they're just the only "real" choice; they simply can't fathom anyone willingly voting for their opponents.

Hillary barely campaigned in the "flyover states" that she needed to win because she couldn't be fucking bothered to actually try. It wasn't worth the effort to try and persuade people she thought of as her lessers. And the DNC just went "well, it's obviously her turn. She's been waiting for the chance at the presidency for 20 years now. We should go ahead and let her be president." Because that's the mentality. They don't have to "win" elections. They just pick a candidate and they get to win, because there is no "real" alternative. That Bush and Trump won don't indicate that, yeah, actually, you do have to fight for the people who are voting for you, otherwise they'll vote for the schmuck that appeals to their basest and most venal instincts. Those were just flukes...right? And you don't have to inspire confidence and admiration in others, because they should just recognize how smart and accomplished and inoffensive their candidates are, and that they're told to vote for them by people that are smarter than they are, so they should just shut up and do it.

It's a party driven less by any kind of ideological goals and more by a pervasive sense of smug, impotent, lazy egotism. And, yeah, they'll get a shitload of votes in the elections because the alternative always seems to be someone who is one goose-step shy of a literal Nazi. Biden will probably even win the popular vote. Y'know....just like Hillary did...

[–] rwhitisissle@lemmy.ml 0 points 4 months ago

And if they are...well, first of all, yikes, and second of all his career as a content creator is going to go from "damaged" to "gone" as no platform would let him stream after that.

[–] rwhitisissle@lemmy.ml -2 points 4 months ago

Okay, hear me out. Yes, Hilldog got the DNC nomination and lost what was supposed to be the most softball Democratic presidential victory in American history, giving us 4 years of Trump. But! But....what if we get her on the ticket with Biden, Biden secures the re-election. Hillary is Vice President for 4 years. Does a great job, makes a lot of people at Goldman Sachs very wealthy, pushes for new legislation to have black teenagers officially outlawed, etc. Then, at the ripe old age of 80, we get a Hillary Clinton presidential bid once a motherfucking 'gain. And then she loses to, oh, I'm gonna say....David Duke.

[–] rwhitisissle@lemmy.ml -2 points 4 months ago

What you’re saying is “inevitable” hasn’t happened for the entire 20+ years of Steam.

Something being "inevitable" by definition means it will eventually happen, but has not already occurred.

Steam’s monopoly is actually what’s holding PC gaming together.

"Steam good. Steam has monopoly. Therefore, monopoly good."

Woof.

[–] rwhitisissle@lemmy.ml -2 points 4 months ago

It can be a problem at other companies, but even worse than average at Valve by virtue of corporate structure. Both of these things can be true.

[–] rwhitisissle@lemmy.ml -2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Fun fact: Former employees of Valve have said that is actually a huge problem in the organization and that its organizational structure seems to encourage bullying and high-school style "cliquishness" by design.

view more: next ›