Because originally there wasn’t netting, and if the puck went where the netting is now, it would’ve been “out of play”.

The point of the netting is not to change how the game is played to be any different from how it was originally played, it’s just there to prevent spectators from needing facial reconstruction surgery when the puck goes out of play.

Sorry about your wallet then, haha. :) He’s got a lot of videos and a lot of reviews. I assumed almost everyone already knew about the nerd castle. He’s a pretty prominent and prolific reviewer of indie games (about to hit 1 million subs on Youtube) with a slight but noticeable lean and appreciation for the grittier, gorier, creepier and crunchier side of indie gaming that a lot of the usual “cozy indie” communities lack. It’s a good place to be if you appreciate that kind of stuff.

I’m surprised splattercat hasn’t played it yet? The description makes it seem right up his alley. You can tell from the videos he makes about them that he particularly loves twisted dystopian space looters like Quasimorphs and Ostranauts and weird, equally crunchy and mechanic-heavy scavenger shit like Roboscav and Mirklurk and they all tend to be the kind of games he’s either played a bunch even before making videos about them or games he keeps coming back to and making additional videos about. I eagerly look forward to seeing a video about it from him sooner or later.

One might even say that Jeffries and Schumer are some of the powerful people who need to be held accountable. Hashtag NotAllDemocrats /s

Money is a shared delusion. It’s been fun. But it’s time to break the delusion and start asking ourselves what our money is actually for, what we actually need, and whether money is still the only way we can get those things.

If you have any basic CSS/HTML knowledge and you’re using a firefox-based browser (or maybe it’s on other browsers too IDK) the addon Stylus allows you to easily create custom stylesheets for any site. It’s very powerful.

Something like:

body { font-family: "Your-Prefered-Fontname-Goes-Here"; }

is probably sufficient in most cases.

I agree. People acting like merely being “disgusted” with what’s happening is enough have no fucking idea what they’re up against. You can’t negotiate with fascists or terrorists. You can’t be reasonable. You can’t tell them how disgusted you are with them. They don’t care, it’s their superpower. They don’t give a fuck about you. They want you to die screaming, and they will laugh when you do.

People who are “disgusted” with this need to start taking actual steps, and the disgusted people still in positions of some actual power and authority are especially the ones with the most responsibility to do something about it. Even if they’ve been robbed of the majority of their power, their position is still important.

Hypothetically, if you were a supreme court justice and you believed the actions the supreme court were taking no longer served justice, is there a law against joining or forming a shadow supreme court that makes and publishes supreme court opinions and decisions that are more just and that reasonable people can actually agree with? I don’t think so. Would it have any official legal power or standing? Not in the current government. But would it piss them the fuck off? Yes. Would it provide a seed of resistance that others can latch onto? Yes. That’s what we need, nucleation sites for the bubbles of resistance to develop on and build into something big enough to breathe on its own. Would it be a lightning rod? Of course it would. That’s the cost of resistance against fascism. They will attack you, immediately and viciously. But they’re going to do that anyway, eventually. You can’t escape it by keeping a low profile. Worse choices are coming for you if you wait. The only thing that will avoid that is complete collaboration and capitulation until you become one of them yourself.

I don’t know a lot about this individual supreme court justice, and I don’t want to make any personal allegations I can’t support, but I do have plenty of reason to be suspicious that few to none of the people in positions of power like hers are actually making any meaningful attempts at resistance. They give some sternly worded speeches but do nothing that threatens to delegitimize the system they are part of. I can’t imagine why “Part of the reason why the court got it wrong was a kind of lack of the appropriate concern or understanding of the consequences of their decisions” doesn’t fill me with inspiring confidence that she understands or admits the scale and significance of the problem here. I don’t want to sound like I’m not stuck in the mentality of “blue team good red team bad”, but perhaps power corrupts just a little bit? Even if you’re the good guy? Maybe you can still be part of the problem even when you’re wearing the right color cape?

It’s not just about making empty protests to satisfy principles, it may seem meaningless but it’s not, it may seem like a losing battle but it’s not, they wouldn’t need to or bother to attack it so viciously if it actually meant you were actually losing. It’s about building alternative systems we can turn to and still rely on when the rest of our established systems are just as systematically dismantled. If they’re undermining democracy, build a new democracy they can’t touch, and don’t let them in the fucking door. Trump understands the power of a name, so you can tell them it’s the United States of No-Maga. You can pin your hopes on the broken, gerrymandered, sabotaged voting process if you want, but just be prepared for the fact that it’s going to be buried in a financial, legal, and informational avalanche, so when (not if) that too eventually fails, ask yourself why you’re still trying to play by their rules when they aren’t playing by yours? If you want a functioning democracy, build it. It doesn’t even require a trip to Home Depot. It just requires people to participate and have confidence that there’s a better way than this. That’s all it needs to make it start to fucking happen.

Government requires the consent of the governed, whether it’s willing consent or coerced consent doesn’t matter. While you still have some ability to resist their coercion, now is the time to actively withdraw your consent from this government and reserve it for another. The constitution is a good place to start, but keep in mind it was only written by mere mortals, and hasn’t really been kept up to date, so even that is worth taking with a few grains of salt and an understanding that there’s room for improvement if you’re planning to build something better.

No they weren’t, how did you get that idea? Nowhere did they ask for a specific fix, nor did they provide the details necessary for a specific fix. The OP asked how it works, and according to my reading of both their post and their comment, they seemed quite curious about what was going on (which is a good mindset to have when attempting to solve a problem) so my intention was to answer some of that curiosity by explaining “how”. You’re the one who decided someone should just provide a fix (which, in this case, would’ve been basically impossible)

Especially when a problem arises because of misunderstanding or ignorance (which is not a shameful thing, it’s simply the default state of understanding), an improved and better understanding of the situation often helps lead one quite quickly to the solution to the problem, and in this case, it seems like OP did solve their own problem once they had a better understanding, so… seems like a successful effort to me? Any particular reason we need to argue about this?

Sounds very fresh and appetizing. I definitely want urine-soaked workers handling my premium food products. /s

It works the same way it normally works. You generate the certificate, give it to them, tell them who you are, they verify who you are, then they sign it and give it back to you. Very routine and straightforward, except for the challenge part that they use to verify your identity.

Think of it in terms of delivering a pizza. The signed certificate is the pizza in this analogy, and they don’t want to send it to you until they’re sure it’s going to the right place. Either the store can send it to you (you have to give them your address and have port 80 open for when they arrive) or you can go pick it up at the store (you give them your address, they verify it through DNS, no port 80 required).

There’s never been anything preventing you from establishing a conversation with the certificate-issuer. You don’t need port 80 open for that. However, unless you have port 80 open the issuer cannot reach out to you, and that’s how they verify you are who you say you are. DNS challenges avoid them having to reach out to you directly, instead they reach out to DNS on your behalf and verify you are who you say you are that way instead.

All aliens must wear hijab or be executed. /s

Thematically it doesn’t sound like my jam personally, but I love the idea of MUDs and text in general. One of the few good things that LLMs have done from my point of view is to make people think about and help prove to a general audience how effective and powerful “chatrooms” using a text-based interface really are and can be. It’s foundational to the way we think. As humans we developed language for a reason, it’s a huge part of our survival and continuation as a species and how we have come to dominate this planet the way we do. It’s how we process information. It’s how we communicate information. We developed keyboards specifically to have a hyper-efficient and accurate way of entering those languages into a computer, and it actually makes sense that generative AI relies on that fact so heavily.

But at some point, some people decided that typing commands was too hard to learn and we wanted to make everything “easier” and more “visual” but that came at a subtle but significant cost that was never really accounted for in how efficiently we can individually convey our own thoughts. Anyone can write a message or description or a story in the same way that, yes, anyone can also draw a picture or act out a scenario, but the difference is in how broad the skill gaps become and how dramatically less efficient the information transfer becomes as you move away from written language into more complex ways to illustrate thoughts and ideas. A crude and amateurish story is not as far removed from a brilliant story as a crude and amateurish drawing is from a brilliant drawing. Fewer people are capable of being decently skilled artists than they are decently skilled writers. By the efforts towards making things more visual, more easy, more slick, we steadily put up heavier and heavier barriers to entry on the creation side at the same time it lowered the barrier to entry for the consumption side. It shifted the balance away from creators and towards non-participative consumption. Even when people do participate and engage, the most common form of participation we see on social media is people writing a comment. Again, it’s text. There’s a reason for that. It’s the lowest effort and most accessible means of communication in the vast majority of cases and situations. Even popular images and videos usually feature (or are exclusively!) filled with text.

Having your entire environment built out of text makes it accessible in a very fundamental way. It lets people interact with it on a more equal footing, everyone has the same tools and limitations, but the freedom is almost unlimited. It lets people participate in it more creatively, not just moving a pre-rendered graphic around or picking appearance choices out of a menu but actually inserting their own thoughts and feelings and ideas into a roleplay or a description with a level of freedom that no other kind of user-interface would actually allow.

All this to say, I appreciate how text-based environments like MUDs promote the democratization of creation, interaction and thought, and I think they or something like them will and should always have a place.

Maybe they have reasons, maybe they’re good reasons, maybe they’re not. It doesn’t matter, because we aren’t entitled to know why they don’t want to release the code, and we aren’t entitled to the code either. Nobody should be obligated to open source their code (unless money has changed hands). It’s not exactly proprietary cutting edge research that will take decades to rediscover and reimplement.

I’m sorry, but I hate how people think free services that never promised to be open source, don’t ask anything of you, don’t take advantage of you, and don’t sell your data, somehow because they got popular because of that, makes them owe the community even more than anyone would ever believe that exploitive freemium or even paid, commercial software does. Nobody’s pretending that Adobe owes us the source code because millions of people paid for Photoshop. We all acknowledge they’re an asshole, but we know we’re not getting the source code and many people still pay for it.

So why does a free website owe its community even more than that? Like the fact that they were kind and generous to the community for a few years means they are now obligated to be a complete doormat and give you everything you want from them upon request or be called an asshole? They don’t get any personal rights and if they try to have any, they’re an asshole, but commercial software does it all the time and it’s okay because it’s just expected that commercial software is going to be an asshole? WTF? We just call anybody who doesn’t give us their source code upon request an asshole? Shut down the whole internet and from now on only provide services that are completely open source from day 1? Sure, sounds great. Anyone who’s got code you like and is just trying to survive this capitalist dystopia without releasing all their source code for free is an asshole, fuck them. Got it.

It may feel that way, but it’s not an asshole move. We are all struggling with mental health and existential dread in the face of what sometimes seems to be a genuine polycrisis that includes an AI apocalypse. Some people deal with this stress more effectively than others, but it doesn’t make someone an asshole when they just can’t take it anymore and you’ve gotta expect some people are going to crash out pretty hard. This is a lot milder than how some people are going to inevitably crash out, and this is not going to be the only situation like this.

This scared me for some reason, I think how fast he walked up and sat down near me.

Editing to add a key detail, he sat down close to me

I don’t directly know OP’s age or the man’s age in this case, but I’m giving OP the benefit of the doubt, and from context I’m inferring that the man was probably older than her given that she refers to him as a “man” and it just sounds like she’s relatively younger (especially if this is sort of one of her first experiences with this sort of thing).

The “sat down close to me” also makes it sound like there was sufficient open seating, and the man specifically chose to sit directly next to and close to this girl. I understand that public spaces often have inadequate seating options and seats that are packed too close together for comfort, and that’s a separate problem, but there’s nothing suggesting that’s what actually happened here, and as I said, I am giving OP the benefit of the doubt.

With those contextual details in place, in my world and perspective, I would suggest that the older man approaching the younger girl to talk should probably approach with some caution, not “fast”, and perhaps even ask permission before sitting and trying to strike up a conversation. I don’t think that’s unreasonable or too much to ask. I’m not saying anyone can’t strike up a conversation with anyone they choose to, of any age, but for the people that choose to do so with strangers, they would benefit from having some social awareness if the situation is anything like what I am picturing (unfortunately realistically) in my head.

I’d say that’s a little bit overly dramatic take on what I was trying to say. I understand where you’re coming from, but I wasn’t calling for anyone to read any minds. But a little bit of sensitivity to the facts and statistics is not an unreasonable ask:

Approximately 4.7 million women in Canada — 30% of all women aged 15 and older — have been sexually assaulted outside of an intimate relationship at least once since age 15. [Source: Statistics Canada, 2019]

That’s almost 1/3 of women, that’s a serious statistic, and it means that, as a man, you have a responsibility to approach unfamiliar women with at least a reasonable measure of respect for their safety and comfort. And it doesn’t even account for any potential bias towards exactly the sort of “attractive” women who tend to get approached by men much more frequently than others because they are in fact attractive: they literally attract these sort of situations and you can’t assume it’s because they choose to.

For someone throwing around accusations of being entitled and self-absorbed, you sound very much like you’re in fact the one saying ‘everyone else should cater to me and they are shitty if they don’t do that’.

I don’t think that’s actually true. I think it’s more just AI propaganda. Most of the so-called “advances” that I’ve seen advertised seem to be far less than they seem when you dig deeper, often relying heavily on previous, human reverse-engineering efforts or simply being injection points built into wrappers for the actual binary game code. It’s just suddenly cool and polished looking because AI padded it out with a bunch of fragile and flaky filler code whose only purpose is to make it look finished and beautiful at first glance when it actually isn’t. The typical AI gameplan, in other words.

Depends on the field and how specialized and regulated it is, but in some cases, the answer’s simply “Youtube”. The trick is, even in fields where it works, you still have to pair it with personal practice and experimentation, it’s not a free ride, you still have to do the work. That’s how your brain actually develops the neural connections into skills, and that’s what makes it so different from mere memorization. Until you actually start to do it, you haven’t really learned anything. People have different learning styles, some people really need the structure of formal college education, and some fields are heavily gatekept (sometimes for good reasons and sometimes not) to require that formalized structure for accreditation, but outside those fields, life’s never been better for people who have the skills for self-directed learning. And if you’re not interested in working in those fields, there’s typically (except in a few specific fields) no law saying you can’t still learn all about them from outside the confines of formally accredited institutions.

It is a shame, but it’s not simply individual personal attitudes that’s causing this. People are afraid of strangers. The problem is, there are too many cases where that’s actually justified now.

The bad people have in fact ruined it for everybody. They have made it legitimately dangerous to have this sort of openness and trust in most slices of society, at least for people who look and behave a certain way, or were born certain ways. The problem is, under the influence of traditional media and social media and government and all the other dysfunctional and corrupt systems in our society, we’ve started tolerating the actually bad and dangerous people in society, instead of punishing them. Often we’re actually celebrating them, and in some cases even electing them President. It makes it almost impossible to sustain a functioning society when bad people are allowed to do bad things with impunity or worse, reward for their behavior. This is what’s causing the breakdown of society. Trust is hard to build and easily broken, and now it’s been broken and it seems like fewer and fewer people are interested in trying to rebuild it.

Why the fuck would women trust anyone in this society when allegedly half of the people in the world’s most economically powerful and culturally influential country voted for a party who is now occasionally saying women shouldn’t have the right to make decisions about their own bodies or even have the right to vote. These horrifyingly regressive attitudes are not just extremist throwaway comments because they are being paired with actions in the US and around the world, and they have serious consequences.

And yes, I am allowed to bring politics into this, because society is literally made out of politics. That’s what politics is, it’s the primary ingredient for making civilization function and it defines how it functions. Our aversion to discussing contentious “politics” is what has allowed society to decay to the point it has. This is not about being “woke” this is about being intelligent enough to want to live in a civilized society. Civilization requires not just moral boundaries but also the willingness to treat those who push at or exceed those moral boundaries as an existential threat, because they are. If you want your society to be good, you cannot tolerate evil. The boundaries and definitions are not always clear, but we must grapple with them as they stand, not avoid them. Grappling with these issues is the day-to-day work required to make civilization function. It is not a failing that we will always have these issues and always struggle with these issues, but it is a failing if we stop trying to struggle with them, because then we’re no longer keeping society functioning. Politics is life. Life is politics.

It is totally reasonable to react the way you did. You don’t owe it to other people to be comfortable around them. They should be thinking about what they can do to make you comfortable, ideally before they do it, and this guy clearly wasn’t. If it is because of some disability or something that’s totally plausible too, but that’s his problem and his cross to bear, not yours. You weren’t rude or cruel, but you were uncomfortable, and you’re allowed to be. If he is capable of learning from that, maybe he will, and I think it would be a good lesson for him to learn.

You don’t have to feel bad about it, it makes sense that you regret how the interaction turned out after the fact, but that regret comes from the additional information and processing time you had afterwards to think about it. If you want to reconsider that guy as a possibly decent fellow who deserves another chance in retrospect that’s alright, and maybe if you see him again you can extend a little more tolerance for his behavior if you think it’s safe. But it doesn’t mean you were wrong in the first place. In general, you should trust your instincts and listen to them, they’re just trying to keep you safe, and better safe than sorry. You should not have to be scared of a man sitting down next to you, but the way some men act in the world we live in, you have every right to. It’s sad, but it’s realistic, and you are not responsible for solving this problem on society’s behalf. When we’ve built a society where you can have a man sit next to you and feel safe about it, then that’ll be great. But we’re not there yet.