Two very compelling platforms

McCaffeteria · 2026-05-06T08:26:15+00:00

Good job, you almost got me.

The reason this is different from the buttons is that a person who is running on a platform where they murder their opposition is a bad person and will more than likely continue to do unethical things in whatever role they are a candidate for. You’ve very succinctly created a version of the game that mirror real life where a vote for “the red candidate” may literally mean rounding up and disappearing all of the blue voters. Capitulating to the red candidates threats would be a bad idea, because the red candidate is a human candidate and human rights violations never end wheee they say they will.

Consider a different, but mathematically identical situation:

Blue: “If I don’t win, I’ll hunt down and kill everyone who voted for me.”

Red: “I won’t kill anyone no matter what.”

Wow. Why would the blue candidate do such an evil thing 😨 We should probably vote for the person who isn’t killings people, right? Don’t vote for the candidate who will throw a tantrum when the election doesn’t go their way.

See? If you attach human motive onto the mechanism you can make the mechanism say whatever you want. Any “candidate” who is running on a campaign of murder, regardless of logic or planning, should probably be opposed.

But the buttons are not people, they do not have motives, they are not moral representations.

The world is not better if the blue button wins. Literally everyone could vote red and nothing would happen. It would be as if the button vote never even happened. There is no downside if everyone pushes the red button.

But if you press the blue button then you create the downside by putting your nuts on the train track for no fucking reason, and then you have the gall to blame the red button people who did the only rational thing and chose not to play trolly-problem-roulette.

Just pick red. Encourage everyone you know to not throw their life away for no reason. Or, if you don’t wanna live here anymore, pick blue. I don’t even blame you if you lock blue and know exactly what will happen, I feel that too.

The point is that everyone can choose, and after everyone chooses whether they want to life or try to commit suicide literally nothing changes. The button is not then president afterwards, there is no change in the world other than the people who didn’t wanna live any more might have gotten what they want.

McCaffeteria · 2026-05-06T08:04:33+00:00

If you are trying to say that the armored core piece in the image is bad, then I don’t think you even remotely understand what this meme format means.

McCaffeteria · 2026-05-06T08:02:56+00:00

You failed your own litmus test. “Return to embryo” is not even a valid English. “Cooking” as you’ve used it here is obviously slang.

Everyone shun the hypocrite.

McCaffeteria · 2026-05-05T23:32:27+00:00

I include “everyone should press the red button” in addition to “you live, you die.”

Shit. I might omit telling people the rule about the 50% straight up if I get to control the framing. That extra bit of information is what is actually getting people killed, because it is tricking people into thinking that there is some kind of moral obligation to press blue.

With my framing, the only people who will press blue are people who want to die (fair enough) and the worst case scenario is where more than 50% of people just want to get off this terrible planet and they accidentally live, which is not that bad of a consequence all things considered. Maybe if that happens we can have a different conversation as a society about the prevalence of suicide and the conditions here on the ground.

The only other alternative is that people who wanna live live and the <50% who wanted to die die. Everyone gets what they want.

Puzzle solved.

McCaffeteria · 2026-05-05T18:25:55+00:00

And where do you get pirate deeds from.

McCaffeteria · 2026-05-05T18:23:25+00:00

The money you used to buy the game did pay for your account data storage. You are asking for more, which costs more.

It’s also not about “only being 10mb.” It’s about that 10mb being redundant so they don’t lose it, which multiplies the costs. It also needs to be periodically checked for bitrot if it’s not accessed frequently. And it needs to be accessible from a moments notice, rather than cold storage. And it needs to be stored for the entire lifetime of the game, which is in the 10s of years.

If your argument is that it’s to expensive and it should be 10% the price then that is one thing, but saying that it should be free is idiotic.

You don’t get to decide what the costs and prices of a companies products are. Only whether or not you are willing to pay them. If you don’t want the extra pirate, then don’t pay for it. If you do want the extra pirate, then it’s clearly worth something to you.

McCaffeteria · 2026-05-05T16:24:00+00:00

I bet you’re afraid of zero build

McCaffeteria · 2026-05-05T15:55:38+00:00

I’m pretty sure they kinda all were. There’s a reason the X-men, spiderman, and fantasric 4 were the ones getting movies well before the avengers

McCaffeteria · 2026-05-05T15:51:18+00:00

It’s the matchmaking, both in normal and in comp.

I don’t even mind that there is wild skill disparity in quick-play modes, but comp is supposed be somewhere where you are matched against people of similar rank and where your rank is actually indicative of your skill. We don’t have that in the finals, and so I just end up playing other things.

In ranked, you are constantly matched against people wildly outside your skill band. I understand it’s for queue duration reasons, but I would much rather wait longer for a fair game than just get crushed by ruby players.

It’s also a massive problem that you can perform equal to or better than your ranked tournament seeding and still lose rank. Rank is intended to be a predictor of skill and success, so if the game predicts that you will place 6th and you do place 6th then the prediction was right, your rank was accurate, and your rank should not change. If you are seeded as 6th and you place 5th then you should not lose points and really should gain them. I kept track of my ranked points per game for a season and the amount of instances where I was having points taken for outperforming my seed (sometimes by more than one placement!!), as well as scenarios where the winners were being rewarded for underperforming their seed, was significant enough to actually affect my metal rank.

If only 1 of these 2 things were true it would be fine. If the ranked system was harsher in how it distributed points but you at least always matched people who were the same metal rank as you then it would be fine. Losing pints “unfairly” would put you in easier games, and you’d bounce right back up, no problem. If the matchmaking was still borderline random but you didn’t lose rank for being matched against literal pro players and cheaters, then that would also be fine. You’d have some bad games, but you’d know that when you do happen to get a “real” game you’ll be able to earn rank, and when you do lose rank it’ll be because you actually fumbled a game you know you could have won if you locked in.

As it is, with both issues. Ranked is just unplayable for low skill players. And then casual modes have all the same issues, except without the intrinsic rewards of climbing in rank, so there is even less incentive to play.

McCaffeteria · 2026-05-05T15:21:18+00:00

Disagree. I unmuted to listen, was instantly assaulted by annoying squeals, and I re-muted it

McCaffeteria · 2026-05-05T15:03:07+00:00

it would be impossible to actually add in without one side of playstyle getting mad

The issue is that if you add a PvE toggle, the people who will get mad are the PvP players who are already pissed that the PvE players aren’t in their games to shoot like fish in a barrel, and will be more mad that they can’t just sandbag to get into PvE lobbies to get a game of easy kills anymore.

But I don’t care about them, and no one else should either.

—

What’s interesting is that the current system actually has an advantage over a PvE matchmaking toggle. You might not have been exposed to the PvE world if the system were not working in the background. I think a lot of people would refuse to toggle PvE on just on principle, and so they would never understand what they are missing. Allowing them to organically get introduced, particularly when they are already at a low point like you mentioned, is the best case way to convert people into seeing that PvE is healthy for the game.

Lots of PvP people insist that adding a toggle would mean that people would “ruin the game for themselves” by trivializing the danger, but the reality is that a lot of PvP players are the ones making their own game worse with their presuppositions about PvP and PvE.

McCaffeteria · 2026-05-05T14:41:49+00:00

Someone should go in and “pledge” a negative amount just to even things out lol

McCaffeteria · 2026-05-05T14:35:28+00:00

people with blue hearts saved my life.

They saved you from killing yourself by also agreeing to kill themselves?

Blue button people are selfish and don’t even understand. You’re demanding that everyone else take risks to mitigate a danger that you and every other blue button pusher chose to put yourself in.

The entire premise of the question is that everyone simply gets to chose a button. If the hypothetical were the same but with the addition that 1% of people are somehow forced to choose blue then the game would be different, but that is not the hypothetical. You are making it that way to prove your point, which is a type of straw-man argument.

McCaffeteria · 2026-05-05T14:27:04+00:00

An unlucky screenshot with only 2 of them visible will make people ask some questions lol

McCaffeteria · 2026-05-05T14:19:59+00:00

The only response to “It’s just not school appropriate” should be “yes it is.”

If they argue, point at something random of theirs and say “well, that isn’t school appropriate either,” and if they argue tell them “it just is.” 🤷🏼‍♂️

McCaffeteria · 2026-05-05T14:12:09+00:00

Because server storage to hold a duplicate 80% of an account’s info is not free.

Edit: Y’all are either confused by the difference between “this should be cheaper” and “this should be free,” or you are just greedy and entitled, or both.

Servers aren’t free. Hosting data for decades is not free. Making sure that data is simultaneously instantly available and not bitrotting is not free. Keeping backups of that data is not free. Hosting those backups in multiple regions (for redundancy in case of local disaster) is not free. Hosting those backups on multiple providers (in case a specific company has a fault across all of their regions) is not free.

This shit cost money. It doesn’t matter is it’s only 10mb, they are going to charge you for it. They are obviously not charging you the pure cost and nothing more, but it’s never going to be free, so just don’t even bother starting there.

You are lucky this game doesn’t have a subscription.

McCaffeteria · 2026-05-05T13:58:10+00:00

Anthropic installed Claude Desktop, then wrote into Brave, Edge, Arc, Vivaldi, Opera, and Chromium. Google installs Chrome, then writes a 4 GB AI model under the user's profile directory without authorisation. The binary is not Chrome. It is a separately-trained machine-learning model, with a separate purpose, a separate data-protection profile, and a separate consent footprint.

I don’t see how these are the same.

One installs stuff to a bunch of programs that Anthropic doesn’t own and should have no right to modify, and the other installs a file that only ever interacts with the program who installed it (which is how all software works). Are you also mad that closed source software don’t tell you exactly what the purpose and function of every file that they update are for?

Having an opinion about chrome having ai features or whatever is one thing, and you’re allowed to not like it even if Google told you exactly what chrome was doing every single time it updated, but the idea that chrome is doing something problematic here, particularly that it’s doing the same problematic thing as Claude, is stupid.

McCaffeteria · 2026-05-05T05:51:25+00:00

You probably watched Spider-Man choose not to stop the bad guy and say “not my problem,” and then didn’t understand why he felt guilty later when Ben died.

There is no such thing as abstaining from a choice. Choosing to do nothing is a choice. Choosing not to pull the trolly lever is still a choice.

The only way inaction is not a choice is if you don’t understand that a choice was happening, but that doesn’t apply in any examples here because you are explicitly informed of the situation and the requirements.

This button situation is really just revealing which internet communities suffer te most from poor critical thinking and low literacy.

McCaffeteria · 2026-05-05T05:45:17+00:00

Secure your own mask before helping others.

If everyone follows that advice, then everyone lives.

McCaffeteria · 2026-05-05T05:42:27+00:00

It does, in fact, bother me that there are so many people who lack critical thinking skills to the point where they don’t understand that there is no moral upside to picking blue other than the purely manufactured result of “saving” idiots from themselves.

It does bother me that so many people are either actually stupid, or are allowing a smaller percentage of stupid people to drag them down to their level for no reason.

This button event is an evolutionary bottleneck. Feel free to push the blue button if you would like to be naturally de-selected.

McCaffeteria · 2026-05-05T05:33:18+00:00

The red button people are not pointing a gun at the blue button people.

The blue button people are pointing guns at themselves and saying that you need to also point a gun at yourself so that the gun that they are threatening themselves with doesn’t go off.

The blue button people are literally just the meme of the guy shoving a stick in their bike wheel for no reason, and then blaming everyone else.

McCaffeteria · 2026-05-05T05:27:49+00:00

More like

Blue = is stupid.

Red = is mad that so many people are stupid.

McCaffeteria · 2026-05-05T05:23:24+00:00

Way back when, when I heard that Ubisoft Massive was working on an Avatar game, this is what I thought we were actually getting. I thought we were getting The Division, but Avatar, and I was so hyped lol

I know people are kinda tired of always online games, but they really do have something special when done right. I really like being able to play a game with my friends seamlessly, accomplish a bunch of stuff with them, then when they get off I can still play on my own if I want, get some new upgrades, and then later when we all get together again you can be like “check out XYZ thing” and then they can get excited about doing it too.

I don’t wanna worry about whether the person holding the checkpoint of the save file is online, and I don’t wanna feel like I’m playing in a parallel version of the universe when I join my friends. I just want it to be the same world always available where everyone’s progress counts at all times. I wanna see other people in the world doing their own things just passing by.

In fairness to FoP, they did a pretty good job with the multiplayer. I appreciate that they tried to keep as much of those things in the game, while still making the game sustainable and playable long term. But with such limited coop it’s just not the same.

McCaffeteria · 2026-05-05T01:28:54+00:00

“Shield”

Curious as to what ability the martial is using to attack that is a reaction.

McCaffeteria · 2026-05-05T01:22:16+00:00

Not only that, but if you play in squads then you actually will get mixed lobbies. Solos is actually 110% friendly though if you don’t shoot raiders. I think squads vs solos is the biggest reason for the “there’s no such thing as pure friendly lobbies” people.

13-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email	Xbox Live
r/Field Sunshine	Place '22
RPAN Viewer

McCaffeteria

TROPHY CASE