papasquat's recent activity
-
Comment on Interview: Firefox’s chief on why he hopes a redesign will help win users from Chrome in ~tech
-
Comment on Interview: Firefox’s chief on why he hopes a redesign will help win users from Chrome in ~tech
papasquat Link ParentThings people need don't necessarily pay the bills unfortunately. That's the main thing all these features no one needs is trying to solve. Chrome doesn't have to make money. Safari doesn't have...Things people need don't necessarily pay the bills unfortunately. That's the main thing all these features no one needs is trying to solve.
Chrome doesn't have to make money. Safari doesn't have to make money. Edge doesn't have to make money.
Those products are ways that their manufacturers can enforce their vision of the internet and keep their users locked into their ecosystem so they can make money off of them elsewhere.
Mozilla straight up just doesn't have that option. They're a company that primarily makes a web browser. That's largely their only significant product. They need to figure out a way to actually turn that product into a sustainable income stream, independent of Google. Virtually no one is willing to pay for a web browser, so Mozilla has to get creative.
If Firefox went away, that would be the end of a true competitive 3rd party web rendering engine, which would be bad for everyone. Especially the die hard ideological open source purists who are the first to demonize and nitpick every little thing Mozilla tries to set their company up for sustainability.
The open source hobbyist community cannot solve this problem alone. A project as massive and expansive as a web rendering engine needs talented, committed, full time professional developers, and that requires funding.
-
Comment on What games have you been playing, and what's your opinion on them? in ~games
papasquat Link ParentI don't mind the idea of a time-based evolving meta in theory. What bothers me is that I know I'll never be able to participate in it. Unless drastic changes are made, I'll never get to fly a...I don't mind the idea of a time-based evolving meta in theory. What bothers me is that I know I'll never be able to participate in it. Unless drastic changes are made, I'll never get to fly a hydra little bird. I don't have the time to devote to grinding out 40 hours of pilot gameplay every season.
That'd be fine if the hydra little bird was just one option for something that can fill a similar role which handles it in a slightly different way, but it isn't. It's way easier to get kills with than the machine gun helicopter, which straight up can't even destroy most vehicles.
On the infantry side, I have level 2 armor, and I'm not likely to get any higher. I don't have a weapon capable of killing people wearing the highest level armor fast enough that they can't just aim at me and kill me, no matter how quick I am, even if I hit all my shots at their head.
I just don't have the time to play the game enough to consistently be competitive late in the wipe. My skill level isn't fantastic, but I do quite well in FPS games when the playing field is leveled. I just don't love this trend started by the extraction shooter genre where you're on an infinite treadmill which demands you regularly sink hours into the game in order to have fun.
Like I said, that could just mean the game is not for me. Every game isn't for every person, and I'm sure there are a lot of people that both enjoy the constant grind and have the time to invest into it, but for my own sake, I'm hoping that something is changed longer term, otherwise I just don't see this game having legs for me after the first wipe.
-
Comment on Jon Watts is our ‘Star Wars: Episode X’ director in ~movies
papasquat Link ParentOh, true. I misinterpreted what you meant, sorry! I agree with you honestly, Star Wars is doing a lot better than Star Trek. Star Wars has always been a heroes journey type story putting ultimate...Oh, true. I misinterpreted what you meant, sorry!
I agree with you honestly, Star Wars is doing a lot better than Star Trek. Star Wars has always been a heroes journey type story putting ultimate evil against ultimate good, and resisting the temptation to do the wrong thing, even for the right reasons.
In that respect, most of the new movies still mostly do that? They just do it really badly.
With most of the new Star Trek shows, I was left asking myself if anyone involved in the writing ever actually saw a TOS or TNG episode, or if basically all of their knowledge came from cultural osmosis. Most of the new shows just completely miss the point of what Star Trek was even about.
-
Comment on Jon Watts is our ‘Star Wars: Episode X’ director in ~movies
papasquat Link ParentI'm not a prequel lover, but I have to admit that the way it depicted the fall of the Old Republic was somewhat believable. It made sense. Wrap the gigantic bureaucracy into a gigantic seemingly...I'm not a prequel lover, but I have to admit that the way it depicted the fall of the Old Republic was somewhat believable. It made sense.
Wrap the gigantic bureaucracy into a gigantic seemingly existential war, gaining support to giving more and more power to an authoritarian, and then that authoritarian uses his newfound authority to consolidate power, culminating with him disolving the Senate at the beginning of a New Hope. Makes sense. We've seen this kind of thing happen countless times throughout history.
A gigantic space laser that shoots halfway across the galaxy in a fraction of a second and destroys a bunch of planets is not something that could plausibly destroy a galaxy spanning government. The whole idea of it is stupid, and the idea that the Empire managed to just somehow escape and do another buildup without anyone noticing is also ridiculous.
It's like the writers never stopped to think that the citizens of the Old Republic, the citizens of the empire, and the citizens of the new Republic were all largely the same people.
Who the hell are the citizens of the first order?
-
Comment on Jon Watts is our ‘Star Wars: Episode X’ director in ~movies
papasquat Link ParentAs a fellow Star Trek fan, let's not get all high and mighty here... I suffered through as much of Discovery and Picard as I could handle.As a fellow Star Trek fan, let's not get all high and mighty here...
I suffered through as much of Discovery and Picard as I could handle.
-
Comment on What games have you been playing, and what's your opinion on them? in ~games
papasquat Link ParentWell, that's honestly my main issue. Like, if there were no seasonal resets, eventually, I would get the top level gear, and I'd be at a level playing field. With resets though, the people with...the devs are planning on having seasonal progress wipes which does partially fix the issue of gear and grind imbalance
Well, that's honestly my main issue. Like, if there were no seasonal resets, eventually, I would get the top level gear, and I'd be at a level playing field. With resets though, the people with hundreds of hours per week to play will get top level gear in a couple of weeks, and I never will.
Personally, I think resets are a very lazy way to "solve" balance long term. If the game can't handle everyone running around with endgame gear, it's not well balanced. Resets are a bandaid that makes the whole situation worse and allows devs to not address the root cause of the issue.
I kind of find the idea of progression in general to be antithetical to the whole idea of a competitive shooter personally.
-
Comment on What games have you been playing, and what's your opinion on them? in ~games
papasquat LinkWardogs: I've been playing this game for the past couple of weeks, mostly because almost all of my long term friends love milsim-esque open world shooters, even though they're not quite my speed...Wardogs: I've been playing this game for the past couple of weeks, mostly because almost all of my long term friends love milsim-esque open world shooters, even though they're not quite my speed generally. I prefer tighter, more precise movement based arena shooters. I have to compromise to ever get to play games with them, so I picked up wardogs when EA dropped.
My feelings on the game are very mixed. It's an interesting, novelish concept. I detest extraction shooters because of how much they impose on my life. I very briefly played tarkov before I decided it wasn't for me, and had a lot of fun with Arc raiders until the first wipe, when I realized truly how much I hate any sort of grind in a game.
Wardogs fixes a lot of those problems for me, while perpetuating other ones.
On the one hand, there are no stupid fetch quests that I need to complete under duress because every other player is trying to do them too. I think the persistent money system is interesting, if not a little kludgy in its current implementation, and new players aren't completely uncompetitive in the way they are in an extraction shooter.
On the other hand, the game is rife with unlocks, and a lot of them are pretty much required to counter certain (popular) styles of play. Getting harassed by an enemy helicopter? You'll need an rpg or machine gun to deal with that on foot effectively, and those require you to grind out levels in the support tree.
Getting sniped? Sorry, the sniper rifle that you're allowed to use to start is less than useless, and also, most people sniping have access to thermal spotting scopes that can see you through a lot of stuff very easily.
Want to fly an attack helicopter? Sorry, you need to do a lot of transport flying to be able to do that.It continues ad nauseum, and a lot of the unlocks aren't just different ways to accomplish the same task, they're just straight up upgrades which are better in almost every way.
That wouldn't be so bad for me, because I like the gameplay generally, and even though I'm only playing for maybe 10 hours a week versus some of the people online that are playing the game for more time than I work at my full time job, I'd eventually get all the same unlocks. However, they're taking another cue from tarkov, and doing regular progression wipes.
Maybe that's just for early access, but it's become the norm for a lot of similar games in the genre, which personally, I feel is just a really lazy way to avoid having to actually balance your game.
I'd chalk the game up as "not for me", if there wasnt so much interest from my friends still, but I think their patience with the issues I have is waning still as well.
That said, I do still have fun with the game here and there, and it could easily become a game I really enjoy most of the time if they fixed some of those issues I have with it, which are easily fixable.
I just hate the idea that every game has to have this endless crawl of grind to appeal to the .01% of people that play it for hundreds of hours a week, and apparently can't be content with just playing a game because it's fun, rather than the endless dopamine trickle that comes from unlocking the same thing 5 times over rrhe course of a year.
-
Comment on Owners mourn spoiled food after firmware update bricks Samsung smart fridges in ~tech
papasquat Link ParentCouldn't you just like... Mount a tablet to your fridge? That way, when the tablet becomes obsolete in 10 years, and can't run modern apps because the OS won't support it, you could just buy a new...Couldn't you just like... Mount a tablet to your fridge?
That way, when the tablet becomes obsolete in 10 years, and can't run modern apps because the OS won't support it, you could just buy a new tablet instead of throwing out your entire fridge.
-
Comment on Owners mourn spoiled food after firmware update bricks Samsung smart fridges in ~tech
papasquat Link ParentYeah, I mean, the idea is fucking stupid, but it kinda makes sense I GUESS? If you really want a calendar on your fridge? What's extremely stupid is that the "smart" part of the fridge (I'm...Yeah, I mean, the idea is fucking stupid, but it kinda makes sense I GUESS? If you really want a calendar on your fridge?
What's extremely stupid is that the "smart" part of the fridge (I'm assuming it's basically a tablet just internally mounted into the fridge) has any sort of integration whatsoever with the refrigeration loop. What could be the possible purpose of that? What benefit would there be?
-
Comment on Paramount settles with California, other states over Warner Bros merger in ~movies
papasquat Link ParentWhat's even the point of regulatory bodies if they don't have more power than the organizations they're supposed to be regulating? It's crazy that one private citizen can just threaten the biggest...What's even the point of regulatory bodies if they don't have more power than the organizations they're supposed to be regulating? It's crazy that one private citizen can just threaten the biggest state government in the US into doing his bidding.
-
Comment on Googlebook revealed and ready for pre-order in ~tech
papasquat Link ParentIn every sci fi movie ever, when someone has something on their phone/terminal/data slate/padd and they want to show other people in the room, or work on it more intently, then pull out their...In every sci fi movie ever, when someone has something on their phone/terminal/data slate/padd and they want to show other people in the room, or work on it more intently, then pull out their handheld device, and then make a fling gesture with their finger towards the receiving device, where it instantly goes up on the big screen/computer.
It always seems so intuitive and easy, and it's absolutely shocking to me that it's 2026, we've had smart phones with intuitive touch based interfaces for like 20 years now, and I still can't do that.
Chromecast was probably the closest thing, but the experience sucks, it's not an open standard, and it's not nearly as intuitive as just pointing at a screen and flinging.
Just invent the "fling to big screen" protocol already. It can't be as hard as flying cars.
-
Comment on Googlebook revealed and ready for pre-order in ~tech
papasquat Link ParentI mean, I have done it. I don't regularly though. The idea of even starting something I'd consider a "task" on a phone fills me with dread. Phones are for communicating and staring blankly at...I mean, I have done it. I don't regularly though. The idea of even starting something I'd consider a "task" on a phone fills me with dread. Phones are for communicating and staring blankly at while they broadcast slop at you. Not for doing actual productive things.
-
Comment on Do you think you're special? in ~talk
papasquat LinkYeah. But also no. I think I have a unique set of characteristics in specific that no one on earth has, has ever had, or ever will have. I think everyone else does too though. Also, I think I'm...Yeah. But also no.
I think I have a unique set of characteristics in specific that no one on earth has, has ever had, or ever will have. I think everyone else does too though.Also, I think I'm more similar to everyone else than I am different. I don't think any of the thoughts I have are particularly unique, and my life is very similar to tons of other people around my age, gender, nationality and so on. It's very unlikely that anyone will think about me in even a fleeting way in 150 years. Way less if I end up not having any descendants.
I don't think that's a bad thing though. I'm not burdened by fretting about things like legacy or the afterlife or anything like that.
I just kinda focus on enjoying my life, making things a little better for the people around me, and that's about it.
I think a lot of the problems we have are caused by too many people thinking they're special, as in, wholely unique and more deserving of things than others, then people thinking they're not, as in, the same as everyone else and completely unimportant to anyone.
Both are problems though.
-
Comment on An insight into looksmaxxxing/blackpill "ideology" in ~life
papasquat Link ParentI'm not talking about number of median relationships, distribution of sexual partners or anything like that. I'm talking about the common incel claim which is so often repeated by those...I'm not talking about number of median relationships, distribution of sexual partners or anything like that. I'm talking about the common incel claim which is so often repeated by those communities that it's become axiomatic, that says: it's easier to find love (as in, a long term committed relationship) as a woman, than it is as a man.
Yeah, I'm sure the number of lifetime relationships is not evenly distributed amongst men. Maybe the distribution is less inequal amongst woman, I don't know. It doesn't matter for the sake of this argument though. In the theoretical situation of a serial dating hot guy that women fawn over dating lots of average looking women who are now single, the women are not in a desirable situation. They got dumped (or dumped the guy who had no interest in settling down long term), are now single, and aren't in a committed relationship. That's not the situation that incels are thinking of when they're being envious of how "easy women have it".
The stated end goal is to have a loving, committed relationship. I basically never seen incels complain that they're not able to have long strings of failed relationships. I think a lot of them actually do desire to have lots of casual sex. I'm not addressing that desire, because I think a lot of them know that's an unreasonable public complaint to make, so the posts they make are things like "I just want a looksmatched girl who loves me and I can start a family with, is that so much to ask???". That's the demand I'm addressing, and the arguments around it that I'm attacking.
We're talking about long term, committed relationships, so looking at who is currently in a long term, committed relationship is comparing apples to apples.
-
Comment on An insight into looksmaxxxing/blackpill "ideology" in ~life
papasquat Link ParentYeah, but the total population of men versus women in a relationship remains the same. If a 20 something woman is with a 30 something man, a 30 something woman is with a 40 something man, and so...Yeah, but the total population of men versus women in a relationship remains the same. If a 20 something woman is with a 30 something man, a 30 something woman is with a 40 something man, and so on and so on, eventually you end up with a 20 something single man and a 80 something single woman, because her theoretical partner is no longer alive.
It still doesn't give you a stat like 60% of men being single and 30% of women being single. You end up with the same amount of people in a relationship from both genders.
-
Comment on An insight into looksmaxxxing/blackpill "ideology" in ~life
papasquat Link ParentYup, that's what I'd expect explains the vast majority of the imbalance. Women thinking they're in a relationship, men assuming they're not. Whether someone thinks/reports they're in a...Yup, that's what I'd expect explains the vast majority of the imbalance. Women thinking they're in a relationship, men assuming they're not. Whether someone thinks/reports they're in a relationship is different than someone actually being in one.
-
Comment on An insight into looksmaxxxing/blackpill "ideology" in ~life
papasquat Link ParentWrong. Your link shows that 63% of men 18-29 vs 34% of women sampled, say they're single. How is this the case? Sampling methodology, unreliability of self reporting on virtually anything, or a...Actually, we can theorize all we want about causes, but you're just factually incorrect. 63% of men 18-29 are single vs 34% of women.
Wrong. Your link shows that 63% of men 18-29 vs 34% of women sampled, say they're single. How is this the case? Sampling methodology, unreliability of self reporting on virtually anything, or a number of other factors.
But it is a logical impossibility. A heterosexual, monogamous couple requires one female participant and one male participant, period. It's not possible for an equal population of heterosexual, monogamous men and women to have any imbalance at all in how many people of each gender are in a relationship, period. If you disagree, I'd love to hear how.
-
Comment on An insight into looksmaxxxing/blackpill "ideology" in ~life
papasquat Link ParentSorry, it popped up on my front page. (I don't know how these things get sorted). I definitely wouldn't. It's just that it's mathematically possible, unlike the same scenario happening with...Sorry, it popped up on my front page. (I don't know how these things get sorted).
Considering we are talking about involuntary celibates, this isn't something to just brush off as unimportant. I guess you agree that in this regard their view is accurate then?
I definitely wouldn't. It's just that it's mathematically possible, unlike the same scenario happening with committed relationships. It's still not true, it's just not 1+1=4 levels of fundementally impossible.
But ugly men have casual sex all the time.
Is it easier to have lots of casual sex if you're attractive, especially with attractive women? Yeah, of course. That's not really some sort of radical theory or revolutionary black pill realization though. Attractive people attract people. That's why we call them attractive.This is false. In vast vast majority of relationships men are either the same age or older than women.
I don't see how that changes anything. There are the same amount of women as men in the world. If younger men are completely not in relationships, that would have to mean that older women are also completely not in relationships. That obviously not the case, but if it were, the easy solution for young men would just be... "wait".
Naturally. A little side tangent, but why do you think the vast majority of "creeps" are men? Because the vast majority of initiations are done by men
It's like saying that if the job market is shitty and no recruiters or companies reach out to you it's a good thing because your destiny is in your hands...
The job market isn't a zero-sum game, the dating market is. It's possible for there to be not enough positions available for workers to fill them. It's possible for there to be too many positions, but not enough jobs. Barring widespread polygamy or weird cultural/political practices like China's one child policy and resulting female infanticide, it's not possible for there to be too many men and not enough women, because human biology produces roughly equal amounts of men and women.
Personally, I'd rather be in charge of who I approach to date and get rejected by people that aren't interested in me than having to wait around for people to approach me and reject the ones I don't like. I'll grant that that may be a personal preference, but you'd think for people that are of the mindset that the world is stacked against them and that the only way to change their luck is via radical self alteration, that would be the preferable situation too.
I'm not dismissing their experiences. I'm sure a lot of them had a hard time dating. Dating is hard for both genders unless you're exceptionally attractive, and even then it can be sometimes.
But it's not ignorant to dismiss the theories formed from these experiences that are logically impossible. It's ignorant to accept them.
-
Comment on An insight into looksmaxxxing/blackpill "ideology" in ~life
papasquat LinkThis is something that I don't get at all with their theory. The claim is that you have to be hot to find a girlfriend because it's much harder to find love as a man. Mathematically, that's just...That they will only want to date up, and it's significantly easier for women to date and get laid, even if they are below average looking
This is something that I don't get at all with their theory.
The claim is that you have to be hot to find a girlfriend because it's much harder to find love as a man. Mathematically, that's just not possible though.For casual sex, sure, one guy could be having sex with hundreds of women who I guess are cool with only having sex once every couple of months when that guy can pencil them in, but for committed relationships, almost everyone in the world is monogamous. Poly people are completely statistically insignificant (sorry poly people, no disrespect, there just aren't many of you). Gay people are more statistically significant, but for every gay woman, there's at least one gay man, so they cancel each other out in the heterosexual dating pool.
Given that there are at least as many heterosexual women as there are heterosexual men, it doesn't make sense that it's easier for women to find a partner than it is for men. Every female partner in a relationship requires a male partner. It's 1:1. I guess you could make the argument that men usually need to actually take initiative, but thats also kind of a good thing, because it means your destiny is in your hands.
If you're a woman following prescribed heteronormative gender roles, you have to just go to places where men hang out, look pretty and hope someone comes up to you. If you're not pretty enough or you don't bat your eyelashes correctly, you're screwed.
I don't get how this theory is so widely accepted in this community when you don't even need any research or experience to disprove it, you just need to think about it logically for 10 seconds.
The development pace of a nostalgia driven video game is completely incomparable to a browser rendering engine.
They're by far the most complicated pieces of software people interact with on a daily basis, and the fact that http is an open protocol with God knows how many extensions, and the RuneScape protocol is not, means that developers do not get to dictate the speed of development. They have to adapt to externalities completely out of their control. Keeping a web rendering engine up to date is one of the most gargantuan tasks there is in the production of software.