The games are masterpieces in their own right. DQ11 probably the best jrpg I've played in a very long time (dq8 ps2) . Spiderman is just a very fun game. It's light hearted enough and has some intense moments. I'm level 41 I think right now and I have a lot of my abilities unlocked and I just destroy the dudes even if I'm out matched 11 to 1. Very satisfying.

Back to dragon quest. They made huge strides in quality of life with book shelves that actually show you that yes, you can read a book from it. The visible enemies is something that is sort of a relief for me because by my second playthrough of DQ8 I was so sick of random battles I almost just threw in the towel. I can explore and fight if I want. I would neglect exploring in DQ8 because of the random battles. Anyway what are your guys' thoughts on the games?

edit: emulating DQ8 on pcsx2 is very very cool. You can make the graphics look almost exactly like DQ11. The textures work wonderfully with interneral resolution increase. Plus you can trigger "fast mode" when runs the game at like 3x speed, which makes the random battles not so monotonous

Since activity is the default view when looking at tildes, it seems like bumping a topic all the way to the top after each new comment can get a little abusive after the topic has existed for quite a while.

I'm thinking there should be some sort of restriction that after a topic has been inactive for a certain amount of time, it does one of four things:

1. It closes. New comments cannot be added, but votes can still be added.
2. A warning appears upon clicking the reply or add new comment button, warning the user that this will bump the topic, maybe giving the option of a silent reply. (no bumping)
3. As topics progress in age (think more than a week), new comments bump less and less on the list as the topic becomes less relevant.
4. As a plugin to the trust system, only users with high enough trust can bump topics after a certain date.

Another programming mini-challenge for you. It's been a month since the first one and that seemed to be rather successful. (I appreciate that there are other challenges on here but trying to sync with them seems tricky!)

A reminder:
I'm certain that many of you might find these pretty straight forward, but I still think there's merit in sharing different approaches to simple problems, including weird-and-wonderful ones.

KnightBot

Info

You will be writing a small part of a Chess program, specifically focusing on the Knight, on an 8 x 8 board.

Input

The top-left square of the board will have index 0, and the bottom-right square will have index 63.

• The first input is the starting square of the knight.
• The second input is the requested finishing square of the knight.
• The third input is the number of maximum moves allowed.

Output

The expected outcome is either True or False, determined by whether or not the Knight can reach the requested finishing square within the number of allowed moves when stating on the starting square.

e.g. The expected output for the input 16, 21, 4 is True since the Knight can move 16->33->27->21, which is 3 moves.

Extensions

Some additional ideas for extending this challenge...

1. Instead of an 8x8, what if the board was nxn?
2. Instead of "within x moves", what if it was "with exactly x moves?"
3. Instead of a traditional Knight's move (2 long, 1 short), what if it was n long and m short?
4. What if the board was infinite?
5. What if the board looped back around when crossing the edges? (e.g. the square to the right of 7 is 0)

Maybe I'm just not very well versed in this sort of thing but I couldn't find anything online. I've always been sort of paranoid that a company might not be truthful in their privacy policy. Is there any sort of law to keep them honest or do we just have to take their word on it?

I listened to Crack the Skye by Mastodon on repeat for 3 months, about 10 years ago. To this day, I still think it's a great album, but have no interest in ever listening to it again. This isn't the only album I can say this about, either.

Did this ever happen to you? What album was it?

Hello dear people,

This post was inspired by @wise's post "What are the sounds of your people"

But I'd like to hear you describe the scent, aroma, fragrance, or any kind of smell that you associate with yours. Maybe there's some overlap with ~food, but it's not just limited to foods and drinks. I think pretty much anything deep in our memories might be tied to the impressions of scents. Maybe it's the soil after night rain, the interior of a car, the book aroma of a library, or a pet, a person... let me know.

I'll be posting mine as a comment.

on some goth shit
meditating in the graveyard
tarring up my lungs while
i'm walking down the boulevard
sad little white boy
crying, thinks his life's hard
you don't know pain,
there's a genocide in Myanmar
people get their throats slit
believing in the "wrong" god
you had a girl make you high
and you fell hard
families are dying
and you want to be a rockstar
so why you taking drugs?
what you trying to get numb for?

i just want a life that
might be worth waking up for
share my music with my
friends and maybe do an encore
invite some people over, get
some liquor that forever pours
their lessons or their lesions,
ask them all about their open sores
sixtysevenhundred people
either shot or burned alive
you're dreaming of a good girl
that you could probably call a wife
this is how real loss looks
this is real strife
you drew a bath of henny
and you want to take a deep dive

on some goth shit
looking out through your red eyes
shades always on like
a blanket to hide behind
bleeding out, wounded
at the first try at real life
how does this shit balance,
do you think you deserve to cry?
praying for a goddess, "i
pray you'll come and cleanse me"
a nation full of people
down the barrel of a cleansing
Jekyll and I'm hiding in
and out of all my draining
should i even feel like this?
there's no way it's the same thing.

Those two words and their relationship with "consent" and "freedom" fascinate me. I've sort of ruminated about it in the back of my mind for a while, but haven't sorted a lot out.

It would be nice for two people to be able to make any agreement they like between each other without restrictions. "I'll do this for me and you give me that in return". If there aren't restrictions on what sort of agreement two private people make, in some sense, that can be maximum freedom.

But then exploitation and coercion come into the mix. "If you don't sign this contract, I will kill you" is a clear example of an agreement not being free. "If you don't sign this employment contract, you won't be able to afford to buy food" is still fairly clear, but a little further removed. "If you don't sign this employment contract, you'll be able to get food, but the food you can afford will be heavily processed and laden with oils and processed sugars, and you could suffer poor health in the future" is getting into a lot of grey area.

We talk a lot about minimum wage workers being exploited. It's true that most of them (almost all of them?) hate their jobs. It's also true that life necessarily requires sacrifices. I don't have a good framework for thinking about what point something becomes exploitative or unethical.

It comes up in personal relationships as well. "If you don't have sex with me, I will kill myself" is clearly abusive and manipulative. "If you don't have sex with me, I will break up with you" is slightly more removed. "If you don't quit using heroin, I will break up with you" is a little grey.

At what point is someone being coerced in a relationship vs two people acknowledging sacrifices they have to make to stay together? I don't have a good framework for thinking about this.

Further things to think about: at what point of mental illness can a person no longer ethically enter into an agreement? What about a normal person who suffers from the usual human psychological biases? At what point is it exploitative to use psychological biases when negotiating with someone? This can go all the way from the benign (ending a price in ".99") to the damaging (designing casino games with flashing lights and buzzers, etc.)

I don't expect someone to be able to give me a pat answer to this. If you think you can give me a 1-line "Exploitation is ...", I think you're probably missing something. But I am curious how other people think about these things, and what examples or what books you've found that have been helpful to you sorting things out.

I started prioritizing GOG a couple of years ago, buying most of my games there because I love their DRM-free stance. I have an entire backup of my GOG gaming library on my hard drive, so even if something happened to my account I'd still have everything I've bought from them over the years. On the other hand, their Linux support isn't great. For example, GOG Galaxy, their all-in-one frontend, is still not available on Linux despite being out for other platforms for years.

Steam, on the other hand, is DRM-agnostic, and there isn't an easy way to separate my games from the service. I worry about what would happen if I somehow lost access to my account. When a game is available on Steam and GOG, I opt for GOG each time because I'd rather have a DRM-free copy that I can control. Nevertheless, Valve has done a lot to support Linux gaming, especially with their recent debut of SteamPlay and Proton. Right now, Steam gives a much better user experience to Linux users and supporting Valve helps move Linux gaming forward. It also helps that their selection is much greater than GOG's, (though that's less of a pull for me as I do appreciate GOG's heavier-handed curation).

I'm torn because I want a little of column A and a little of column B. I keep hoping that GOG will eventually catch up with Steam with regards to Linux support, but that's already been the dream for a while (and a lot of people are done holding their breath). At this point I'm wondering whether I should just hop on the SteamPlay train and start putting my eggs back in that basket. Anyone have any thoughts? Who do you choose to buy from, and why?

you head to the gas station to catch a 6-pack and maybe a bag of chips or some rillos. you pass the cashier a twenty, and they mention your change will get you a couple lottery tickets. you're in a good mood and we all hate coins, so you just tell 'em you're down and to choose random numbers.

a week later, you wake up and see the winning lottery numbers on the news.

hopeful curiosity turns into a flooring disbelief as you pause the tv and check the numbers four times over.

you scramble to find and unlock your phone, heading straight to google.

"winning lottery numbers"

"how to tell if you won the lottery"

"lottery number checker"

everything checks out.

"how to claim lottery winnings"

you go to claim your prize, and you can choose between $130,000,000 in post-tax cash now, or $210,000,000 spread equally over the next 30 years.

which do you choose? what do you do with it?

Once there were three tribes. The Optimists, whose patron saints were Drake and Sagan, believed in a universe crawling with gentle intelligence---spiritual brethren vaster and more enlightened than we, a great galactic siblinghood into whose ranks we would someday ascend. Surely, said the Optimists, space travel implies enlightenment, for it requires the control of great destructive energies. Any race which can't rise above its own brutal instincts will wipe itself out long before it learns to bridge the interstellar gulf.

Across from the Optimists sat the Pessimists, who genuflected before graven images of Saint Fermi and a host of lesser lightweights. The Pessimists envisioned a lonely universe full of dead rocks and prokaryotic slime. The odds are just too low, they insisted. Too many rogues, too much radiation, too much eccentricity in too many orbits. It is a surpassing miracle that even one Earth exists; to hope for many is to abandon reason and embrace religious mania. After all, the universe is fourteen billion years old: if the galaxy were alive with intelligence, wouldn't it be here by now?

Equidistant to the other two tribes sat the Historians. They didn't have too many thoughts on the probable prevalence of intelligent, spacefaring extraterrestrials--- but if there are any, they said, they're not just going to be smart. They're going to be mean.

It might seem almost too obvious a conclusion. What is Human history, if not an ongoing succession of greater technologies grinding lesser ones beneath their boots? But the subject wasn't merely Human history, or the unfair advantage that tools gave to any given side; the oppressed snatch up advanced weaponry as readily as the oppressor, given half a chance. No, the real issue was how those tools got there in the first place. The real issue was what tools are for.

To the Historians, tools existed for only one reason: to force the universe into unnatural shapes. They treated nature as an enemy, they were by definition a rebellion against the way things were. Technology is a stunted thing in benign environments, it never thrived in any culture gripped by belief in natural harmony. Why invent fusion reactors if your climate is comfortable, if your food is abundant? Why build fortresses if you have no enemies? Why force change upon a world which poses no threat?

Human civilization had a lot of branches, not so long ago. Even into the twenty-first century, a few isolated tribes had barely developed stone tools. Some settled down with agriculture. Others weren't content until they had ended nature itself, still others until they'd built cities in space.

We all rested eventually, though. Each new technology trampled lesser ones, climbed to some complacent asymptote, and stopped.

But history never said that everyone had to stop where we did. It only suggested that those who had stopped no longer struggled for existence. There could be other, more hellish worlds where the best Human technology would crumble, where the environment was still the enemy, where the only survivors were those who fought back with sharper tools and stronger empires. The threats contained in those environments would not be simple ones. Harsh weather and natural disasters either kill you or they don't, and once conquered---or adapted to--- they lose their relevance. No, the only environmental factors that continued to matter were those that fought back, that countered new strategies with newer ones, that forced their enemies to scale ever-greater heights just to stay alive. Ultimately, the only enemy that mattered was an intelligent one.

And if the best toys do end up in the hands of those who've never forgotten that life itself is an act of war against intelligent opponents, what does that say about a race whose machines travel between the stars?