u/Error_rdt

It's impossible to understate America's influence but can such influences go too far? I have definitely seen people complain about how Americanized their country's politics have become with the country even adopting American style Identity politics and culture wars. This extends over to social justice where I have also seen people complaining about how Americanized it is. One example is LGBT movements and spaces where I have seen disillusioned LGBT people complain about it being too US centric in terms of narratives and adopting Americanized Frameworks which doesn't take into account other countries local histories, culture and politics This comment sums up such sentiment much better than I could

So to what to extent is this an Issue?

This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post

I asked recently asked whether this game was worth it on another forum and so far and I heard from many (not all so far) that the base game wasn't good but what about with Invictus? I'm in the mood for something in ancient times and while it is considered a flaw that the game is abandoned it's actually a draw to me because I am sick of dealing with Paradox's DLC policy I would rather just buy once with the few DLCs (especially since there is a sale) and just play with the mods for free.

This may sound like I'm making things up or rage baiting especially if you've seen how many (obviously not all) fans act online. But yeah there are noticeable amount of chuds in the fandom that think Atlus is sanitizing Persona to appease the west and how Atlus has gone woke they were also calling metaphor woke because something about tolerance?

Mind you this is a series that hasn't had a female protagonist since P3P and only once before in Persona 2 Eternal Punishment has arguably went backwards with same sex depictions going from romanceables in P2 and P3P to whatever the fuck P5 is. There is a noticeable amount of people that are actually tone deaf about this and claim the series is "so gay" based on arbitrary aesthetic grounds like they did with Akechi "omg how can you be a homophobic persona fan P5 is soooo gay look at akechi"

Although it is hard to deny that some things are seemingly being toned down but I don't think this makes Atlus woke. To be tinfoiled hat for a moment I think ATLUS is trying play both sides they won't be as derogatory and as mocking as previous titles but they also won't add things like a female MC or same sex romance options as that will make the chuds upset and also I'm pretty sure they don't internally because... reasons. Best you can hope for is showing a pride pin for 2 seconds. They may even do some baiting to provoke fujos.

I thought this was a glitch on my part but no this is what it is says in RF4 does that mean the RF universe is in the 1600s? That would mean RF5 taking place 50 years after RF4 is set in the 1660s, looking at how much Hina has grown up shows that roughly 10 -15 years have passed since RF5 meaning GoA takes place around the 1670s - 1680s I don't think RF6 will have as much of a timeskip so that would mean it will probably take place around the 1680s - 1690s.

RF never felt like a purely medieval fantasy game it always had a magitek behind it and considering the existence of pirates especially in ToD RF may actually lean more into magitek early modern fantasy rather than medieval which would actually explain the aesthetics of Rune Factory considering how transitional early modern aesthetics were. Having more baroque influences would be sick ngl.

View Poll

This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post

This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post

I was suprised to see some pragmatism from moderate dems like Josh Shapiro in regards to regulating LLM data centers. LLM data centers are incredibly unpopular across the board as common folk have mostly been bearing the cost with how demanding data centers for LLMs have been with energy, water and chips causing the cost of many things to increase. Should any of these regulations also go towards data centers not for LLMs?

As for the second part of this question one of the reasons I do not identify as a Liberal is because of the silence I have seen from both liberals and conservatives when it comes to worker displacement most evident through the silence of the worker displacement in the US of manufacturing workers in the late 20th century - 2000s through the opening up of trade granted automation was also a factor so this issue of technology displacing workers is nothing new. There are things that could be done if AI is to cause mass worker displacement things like UBI, paid retraining, Shortening working hours while either increasing wages and/or decrease the CoL etc. But please something, anything more than the silence I have seen from the both sides of the aisle on worker displacement in the late 20th century.

Because prior to this whole data center for LLMs thing most people saw data centers as nothing more than tech Infrastructure. All this turn against data centers started when they were built for LLMs.

And the reason is pretty simple it has been insanely resource demanding and the common folk have been bearing the cost. The prices of a lot of goods have went up like PC Parts my PC which I built 6 years ago is showing it's age and I'm not sure when I'll be able to upgrade within my budget. Electric bills have gone up in states that were building these Data Centers for LLMs add to that them being built on neighborhoods alongside the water, electricity usage and other environmental concerns. There's also the potential of mass worker displacement and both liberals and conservatives have been historically silent on such worker displacements.

If you don't want people against LLMs maybe adress these issues instead of calling it slopulism. Otherwise don't act shocked when people turn against them.

I built my PC 6 years ago and it's starting to show it's age I'm not updating right away I don't have the money right now this is more planning in the future hopefully around next year.

i5 9600k
RTX 2060
16 GB DDR4
200 GB SSD (For windows)
2 TB HDD
1 TB NVmE SSD

I don't actually play the newest titles often and games I've struggled to run on medium - high settings are helldivers 2 and Stalker 2. but a lot of the games I played prior to the mid 2020s I do fine. In fact I actually play a lot of niche games with wide variety of resource variety. Like I plan to play Stalker GAMMA or one of the freeplay mods soon. So I'm not sure how urgent of a situation I am in terms of upgrading for example I can play deep rock galactic just fine so if you want to tell me to hold off for a year or two because of the current prices that's fine.

Look all I want with PC gaming is at least 1080p 60 fps on high not even Max Settings. Not looking for the fanciest hardware just whatever gets this done.

For the record I think game devs should to the best of their ability optimize around as much hardware as they can I'm not the biggest fan of spending thousands of dollars every few years (especially with these current prices) just to play the latest major titles (although I seldom play the big studio games anyway) at 1080p 60fps without the game looking like crap since imo we're getting diminishing returns in terms of graphical advancements going from 2018 to today is nowhere near as big of a difference as going from 2010 to 2018 same gap.

All I ask for is this. If your game on High settings 1080p looks like it could've came out in 2018 then it should be able to run at 60fps, 1080p high on hardware that could run 2018 games on the same settings.

If your game looks slightly or moderately better than games from 2017 - 2019 then it should only be slightly or moderately more demanding

For one while there are individualist people, individualist cultures and societes there are no truly individualist nations as the nation state alongside it's institutions are inherently collectivist contructs no system is truly individualist. Individualism and collectivism aren't even mutually exclusive the right kind of collectivism could be used to collectively protect the Individualism of people and people can be naturally inclined to collectively participate in something if it benefits them as an individual.

The collectivism of socialism is already known. But I would also argue the capitalism has also been very collectivist or at the very least anti individualist for the working class. As workers are expected to put their needs, well being and personhood aside to serve hierarchal businesses and corporations. Work culture is often very uniform and takes time away from individuality. A persons worth is seen through economic contribution often above their character and hustle culture promotes putting your health aside, working long hours, putting up with poor work conditions and poor treatment all in the praise of capital. The only ones who are truly individualist are those at the top of the hierachy as they can afford to do so while undermining the individualism of those lower of the hierachy. All this with consolidation of power by corporations and threat of starvation and homelessness for those who do not contribute. You are still serving collective entities and constructs like corporations and economic output and those interest always come before the interest of the individual.

Collectivism should not be seen as a big counter to capitalism as collectivism has actually been used to bring out the worst aspects of capitalism. Take Japan for example it is actually through collectivism and a conformist society that enables the toxic work culture in Japan, same for South korea and even China which is officially communist but highly capitalistic and arguably corporatist. I know all these systems exist in a spectrum so this isn't to generalize all of socialism and capitalism but this is what I see. I made a similar post about this not long ago more about the collectivism of capitialism in hopes to be about what this post is about but discussions drifted off topic so this post is more about what's in the title.

I myself am not egoist I think my take on that debate is thay everyone is deep down both egoist and altruistic. On paper they would seem like they would pro capitalist but the reason why they piqued my interest was because they were the ones who pointed out something about capitalism that I noticed and barely anyone else was pointing out and that is that capitalism can be more collectivist than people realize as individuals are expected to submit to corporations and businesses and put their wellbeing and needs aside to contribute to capital. Collectivism can and has been used to bring out the worst aspects of capitalism take east Asian countries like Japan and South Korea for example where it is actually collectivist mindsets and conformity that enables the toxic work cultures in those countries.

I myself am not socialist or communist something I have to reiterate that as criticism of capitalism does implicate you as either of the two. I know the answer is whatever benefits them the most but where does that tend to lie to them?

Whenever there are discussions about the issues of capitalism the issues are often touted at as a byproduct of individualism but how true is that really?

I mean think about it, what is so individualist about having your sense of your self, desires, dreams, personality etc being stripped just to be another cog in the machine? You are not a person anymore but a mere means of production. What is so individualist of societal pressure of the masses to contribute to capital and submit to corporate institutions with even your wellbeing being secondary to that? I have seen people online being very unsympathetic towards the idea of someone willing to work but not wanting to work if the job opportunities are detrimental to their wellbeing. Your sense of personhood and wellbeing comes second to contributing to capital, GDP and shareholder revenue. So called individualists act like corporations are entitled to the labor of the masses. The glorification of hustle culture kind of encapsulates a lot of this.

The only people who seem to actually live like individualists are those at the top of the hierarchy of hypercapitalistic societies where the existence of such hierarchy undermines individualism alongside the consolidation of power by wealthy elites. Some will argue it is still individualism because of supposed choice but how much choice do you have really? Especially With all the power consolidated by corporate elites if you do not conform to the hierarchy and corporate machine you are left to the streets being in danger of starving to death or being killed by a crazy person.

I want to make something clear that I'm not a communist or a socialist as a lot of communist societes actually end up having similar hierarchies and power structures of hypercapitalist societies I think China is a good example of this and I don't get how anyone could look at 996, sweatshops, ban of indiviual unions and believe China is a liberating force for the working class I think China is a good example of how collectvism is used to bring out the worst aspects of capitalism. Other examples are Japan and South Korea which are CAPITALIST countries.

Nothing about corporatist and hypercapitalist societies are individualist it's very hierarchical and collectivist. It's not individualism it's corporate collectivism. Literally the worst of both worlds.

This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post

For one the stakes aren't as high compared to other games SoC is about solving the mystery of Strelok and through that destroying the C Consciousness which was responsible for much of the horrors of the zone, Clear Sky was about well Clear Sky and Also stopping Strelok from reaching the center of the zone because of the destructive results from it, HoC is about solving the mystery of Skif's home and later about the fate of the zone itself, CoP on the other hand is about finding what happened to some crashed helicopters from an emission and later getting out no major big bad this time with a lot on the line just solving a mystery and getting out.

I think another thing is how more character driven and less lonely the game feels the Zone of CoP is the still the same dangerous, anomaly infested zone of the other games but the game never felt as desolate as the others and that was because of how more character driven it is and how less alone you were especially by the end. Of course there are still desolate moments in the game but overall it being more character driven makes it feel less so.

And finally there is the ending I know the game has multiple endings but you can literally end things off where everyone is genuinely better off and doing well for themselves and honestly feeling good at the end. At the true end of SoC you get a feeling of barely making it and being glad to survive, CS ending is dark with it ending with most of Clear Sky being killed or brainwashed and the endings of HoC significantly affect the fate of the zone with half of the endings having both very negative and positive implications and the rest being very grim. All of these being much more grandiose than CoP

None of this makes CoP bad but it does it stand it out for a series talked about as being grim and desolate. It actually is a strength of CoP and I hope the new DLC puts it in that direction which for me personally is especially needed as I had issues with the writing of HoC I don't think its a bad game but is it major flaw for me but CoH does look more promising and I do hope it's as character driven as CoP.

View Poll

The narratives surrounding the "Protestant work ethic" is to essentially push that Protestants work more than Catholic/orthodox christians are more against leisure than catholics/orthodox christians partake in hustle culture more than catholics and orthodox Christians and overall paint protestant Christianity as faith based corporatism and protestants as corporate bootlickers.

Now if you compare the US to say Spain then the narrative seems true but how about protestant Netherlands? Is this really as universal?