Supposedly, a meltdown at sea is pretty low risk because you have the perfect heatsink literally everywhere around you, and its a molten salt design, which I think(?) (source: my ass) means that the fuel would at worst leak into the sea and immediately solidify back into some inert state.
Assuming you mean “Can Mastodon instances defederate with Threads?”: Yes. Mastodon (and similar services) run on the ActivityPub protocol, which allows them to decide who they do and do not federate with. Many instances have chosen to preemptively block Threads, many have chosen not to. Pick what works for you.
by adding features you can only get if you are on their platform. Their goal is to make most people prefer the Meta version of the fediverse
Why is this a bad thing? This is the system working as intended: a company forced to make a service people want, rather than just taking users for granted. You resist enshittification because you’re not being held hostage through access to content, so the company is forced to make the service good. And this will attract other companies to produce competing services.
And besides, most people already prefer the Meta version… they already have the user advantage. There’s already way more users locked in their services than there is on the rest of the Fediverse.
I am optimistic about Meta’s investment in the Fediverse. If you don’t believe the Fediverse can survive the embrace of big tech, I don’t think you believe in it at all. You don’t want an open web, you just want to be the one in control. The goal of a decentralized internet - in my opinion - is to separate content from service. And if you believe that is the future, then you have to accept that companies are going to build new services that will try to monetize that content. But the beauty of that paradigm is you get to choose the service that works best for you without sacrificing access to the people or media you’re interested in. And really, it’s not much different from say, Google, being able to monetize Chrome because it can access your website. I mean… yeah, but that’s kind of the point?
Doesn’t really seem spoilery to me at all. Alan Wake - and Remedy in general - is very into surreal weirdness and world fuckery. He’s mostly talking about audiences being receptive to pushing creative boundaries.
Pre-0.19 I assume you would need to be on an instance that is blocking them.
Post-0.19 you can block them as an instance, meaning “any posts from communities which are hosted on that instance are hidden”
So, the answer still varies depending on your goals for blocking.
For clarity:
This does not apply when you can move or make your own instance. It’s like complaining about tyranny inside your own house. Like, what?
I think a perfectly acceptable line to draw is “Is it reasonable to expect a large majority of the people on this instance would want this other instance blocked?” If the answer is yes, block them. If somebody has a problem with that, move to a different instance.
I don’t really understand what the problem is.
I don’t know if there’s a service that provides both functions. I’m sure there’s a way to do it - Lemmy posts are already accessible through Mastodon. Currently, I assume you would need the instance itself to offer both services under one account.
I would just write the world in a way that is interesting to you, and add to it as players show interest. “Hey, I want to play a Tabaxi” -> “oh okay, let me think about what that means and I’ll get back to you.” This also gives you more latitude for using their ideas to inform the world. “I want to play a Tabaxi Wizard” -> “oh interesting, maybe there’s a clan of them that…”
You’ll be able to focus on what you care about, which will make the world more interesting, and allow players to incorporate things they care about if they wish, which will make it more fun for them too. Framing it in terms of “up for deletion” implies you need to answer everything about the world from the start, which is not only inefficient but an impossible standard. Just because you haven’t considered something doesn’t mean it can’t exist.
If you want, you can view science as a system of organization. A way of making sense of facts. If I give you a file of seemingly random ones and zeroes, it is useless. If I give you an algorithm to decode those ones and zeroes into a message, that has utility. However, somebody else could produce an algorithm to decode those same ones and zeroes into an entirely different message. So, which algorithm is correct? Neither.
But say I give you another file, and Algorithm B doesn’t produce anything useful for this message, so now Algorithm A is more useful. But I also provide a new Algorithm C which also finds messages in both files. Now which is more correct, A or C? And on and on. We continue to refine our models of the data, and we hope that those models will have predictive utility until proven otherwise, but it is always possible (in fact, almost guaranteed) that there is a model of the universe that is more accurate than the one we have.
Consider the utility of a map. A map is an obviously useful thing, but it is also incomplete. A perfect map, a “true” map, would perfectly reproduce every single minute detail of the thing it is mapping. But to do so, it would need to be built at the same scale as the thing it is mapping, which would be far too cumbersome to actually use as, you know, a map. So, we abstract details to identify patterns to maximize utility. Science, likewise, is a tool of prediction, which is useful, but is also not true, because our model of the universe can never be complete.
I don’t really know what this post is on about, but science is not truth. It’s a system of prediction. The closest you can get to “truth” would be observation and data. Science is the process of interpreting these facts to better understand what things will look like in the future. It is obvious that science is not ‘true’, because by its nature it requires change over time as our models of the world improve.
My hot take is that you don’t actually want fewer streamers. As it stands, pirates benefit the most from content wars because the services are paying more to produce shows than they are receiving in subscriptions.
The obvious losses are legacy content and access to it. I don’t know that there’s a good solution. A streaming service benefits most from surfacing content that will keep you on the platform, meaning either a modern series with promised future seasons, or older content that’s still popular. Any old obscure media is going to lose money for rights holders on a $/stream deal because they could potentially make more $ from a single physical media sale than any amount of streaming would net them (if it’s $/stream, and only 2 people stream it, that’s very little return). And nobody subscribing to these services is going to shell out more money for specific titles because to them, that’s why they’re subscribing in the first place.
Backpack Battles, basically.
If you try to just use the characters and setting to tell a different story, it’s also going to be soulless because those characters aren’t made to tell that story. Make your own characters and tell your own story if you don’t want to stick to the spirit of the original work.
I don’t exactly agree with this. If the creator has a vision, I say let them try. They should be able to stretch and change and rework things however they want. Of course, the farther they stray, the more it begs the question “Why?” but I don’t think it’s impossible if they have ideas.
or played the game
I would argue it’s actually a detriment to experience anything other than the source material when adapting a work. Especially with books, different people are going to have wildly different interpretations of the world. The character that exists in your mind is going to be different from somebody else who read the same book. But once it is adapted to a visual medium, you lose a bit of that magic. Which sucks, because all of those previous interpretations are still valid! More valid even, than anything that was put to screen, because they were yours.
I think the argument for accuracy is kind of bullshit anyway (not that you said this, but others have). Is The Shining (the film) worse for the changes it made to the original text? Stephen King might think so; he would also be wrong. You don’t want something accurate, you want something that’s good. You want somebody with passion and artistic vision to create something new and uniquely amazing. The recent Last Of Us show, to my knowledge, tread pretty closely to the source material. “Aha!” you might say. But what is also true, is that the best episode of that first season was also the probably the biggest deviation from the source material. I probably don’t even need to say which one if you’ve seen the show.
Anyway, companies should hire people who are both passionate about the source material, and want to make something cool and new in that world - not robots who are just going to recreate the original work beat for beat. If I wanted that, why wouldn’t I myself just, you know, read the book?
Cadence or intonation depending on what you mean.
Edit: This would seem to sum up the various parts of speech pretty concisely https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosody_(linguistics)
A couple years old, hopefully most of the websites on here are still alive:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NO-05LM-SakbwqNajBXgIO4HuCSkBd6n/view https://alinachin.github.io/onlineboardgames.html
It’s based on assumption, not faith. If we can trust our senses, and if things will continue to be as they have been, then the things we are learning have value. As long as you can recognize that everything could in theory end or completely change at any moment, it’s not blind belief.