u/Proper-Ear-6734

i have the r3

• I bougth an arduino and thinking if it was an good decision. keep in mind i alredy have an esp-32-s3 and an pico 2w

Has anyone else noticed that T for Teen (12/13+) games have been getting some really pushy character designs lately that feel more appropriate for M-rated (17+) games?

Just last week, Epic Games released a new skin for Dylan in Fortnite Chapter 7 Season 3 called the "Gold Huntress," which has sparked quite a bit of online debate for its sheer amount of exposed skin: a revealing gold top and very short shorts. While Dylan is an awesome mercenary who even has completely togglable tattoos, this skin definitely pushes what you'd expect from a cartoony Teen game. This is a trend that isn't exclusive to Fortnite; if you check out any of the trending live-service titles like Zenless Zone Zero, Marvel Rivals, or Overwatch 2, you'll notice that a good half of the hero-shooters and gacha games in the Steam top charts are leaning heavily into mature designs.

I looked into how this actually works for the rating boards, and this is why the developers keep doing it:

* Actions, not outfits, are what rating boards consider. In both the US (ESRB) and Europe (PEGI), M-rated (17+) criteria is based on extreme triggers: heavy blood/gore, sexual acts or implied ones, or explicit drug use. Because game developers present stylized, bloodless combat (e.g., when someone gets shot in Fortnite, they simply teleport away), they can implement hyper-revealing skins or edgy, mature dialogue. The rating boards simply put a "Suggestive Themes" warning on the box and give it a 13+ rating.

* "Mature" designs make for more successful Battle Passes. Developers understand that the audience for games is not entirely composed of children. Older teenagers and adults are the ones with the disposable income that can be spent on Battle Passes, skins, and gacha pulls. In this way, older, edgier, or more suggestive designs directly cater to the purchasing power of adults.

* The Steam & Gacha factor. When live-service games get a 17+ rating, it limits their potential market size by hundreds of thousands of younger players and restrict sales in various regions/marketplaces. In Steam's case, these companies toe the line: keep the gameplay cartoonish enough to retain the massive Teen player base but design the characters to be attractive and mature enough to drive microtransactions.

Basically, what we have here are gaming companies min-maxing the rating system. Keep the bloodlessness cartoonish, but make the characters cool and mature-looking enough to print money.

What do you guys think? Are skins like Dylan a step too far for a Teen-rated game, or is this the new normal for live-service games?

I know it sounds crazy, but my Raspberry Pi 5 has basically become my main PC.

I have a full gaming desktop sitting right next to it, but unless I'm gaming or heavy coding, the big rig stays off. For 90% of what I do web browsing, watching videos, emails the Pi 5 is shockingly fast.

It really made me realize how overkill a 500W+ desktop is for standard daily tasks. You get all your computing done on a tiny board that pulls almost no wattage and makes zero noise. Anyone else using an SBC as their daily driver because it's just that good now?

And what do you thing about arm chips are they better than x86 ?

Edit: Thanks 4 your replies

I'm not even saying that the pictures are bad. To be honest, they look quite good ever since Omni and the new GPT came out. It's the sheer laziness of it that is just infuriating me.

The identical shiny plastic texture every image that comes from Gemini has, and the constant insistence ofGPT having those ridiculous 3 lines on the primary sentence. It’s boring and repetitive.

I'm more than willing to overlook a local school using it to make a bulletin board, but KFC? The government? You have tens of millions to spend on your marketing budget. Just hire a real artist. When organizations with limitless cash just don't seem to care to pay a human designer any more it feels cheap.

Hi everyone,

I've been thinking about this a lot, about why Harry Potter has come to be labeled 'demonic' by a lot of people and religions, when the entire story is really about a battle of good vs evil in the very purest sense of the word.

I attended Christian school when I was younger, and our English textbook was ironically called Abracadabra. To us young children, abracadabra was merely something silly we all knew from fairy tales, which is how I also think about the magic system in Harry Potter; to me, it is just pure fun and fantasy.

I think it is absolutely fine to enjoy the book and films, providing you are not taking it out into the real world and trying to become a witch. The bible warns us to follow the path of God, so there is obviously a distinction, that you should not take out into real life. But to read a fictional book which celebrates the fact that love conquers evil and is ultimately a sacrifice? I do not see how there can be any harm in that, if you are sure of your own faith.

I would like to hear everyone's opinions, especially if you were brought up in a religious household or attended a church school:

Was Harry Potter banned from your school/by your parents?

How do you find it balancing your religion and also reading a fictional fantasy series?

>

I would like us to get talking