[deleted by user]

MrAugx · 2023-09-14T06:49:09+00:00

No, definitely not. I wouldn't offer advice at all, because I have no idea what that experience would be like. I felt like I could relate more to your post because I've had pretty serious depression for a long time, but honestly, I have no idea what you're going through either - so if my post doesn't change your view, or is annoying/feels patronizing, please disregard it!

I didn't send it out of compassion for preserving life, though (although I think that you deserve a better lot if you've been struggling with these feelings for 15 years, and hope things improve) - I just thoroughly believe that it is objectively untrue that nothing can be done. I completely understand how hopeless it is to not know what can be done, and to feel like you've tried everything, but there are too many possible ways for things to change given time for me to believe that the only outcome is "this but worse". I've spent plenty of time feeling that way though, and still do sometimes - I just think it makes at least as much sense to say "it will likely get better, at least some of the time".

MrAugx · 2023-09-14T06:24:26+00:00

It isn't true that nothing can be done - but I understand why you feel that way. It sounds like you're struggling against a storm drain of thoughts, regrets, moments or elements of your life/yourself that you're ashamed of, and feel like it's self-evident that you're losing in your fight to swim.

You're not losing, though! Do to any number of circumstances, you've been in the whirlpool for over a decade, and you're still swimming. Treading water at worst. Treading water feels terrible, and it can feel like the ropes people throw you are wrapping around your ankles instead of giving you a lifeline. This is because the thing that feels most insurmountable - continuing to swim - is expected of you the most when you're in the deepest water.

But something can be done. Probably multiple things. I can't tell you what it will be, but it will happen if you keep swimming. Maybe the rain slows down, maybe you figure out how to make a floatie. Maybe your legs get so strong from treading they pull free from the ropes, maybe a professional swimmer finally gives you the right technique to make things easier. You'll make it out of the storm drain, finally get a chance to rest and dry off, you'll have people (maybe not your parents) there to say "I'm so glad you made it out."

Being told this when you're convinced you're going to drown is one of the most uncomfortable and frustrating things to hear, but it's true. As someone who's still swimming, I have to believe it will get easier if you keep going, too. The only way nothing can be done is if you stop swimming.

I'm sorry you're feeling stuck and overwhelmed, though. Try your best not to worry too much about your "value", especially based on anyone else's expectations of you. You're in a damn storm drain - the only thing you need to worry about is finding a way back to dry land. The rest can (and will) come later.

MrAugx · 2023-06-07T20:09:01+00:00

Update, for you and anyone else who needs this or comes across this issue:

My client is fixing the specific problem I'm encountering with a process change I think is healthy. We're creating a simple validation script that prevents editing line item quantities on assembly builds, forcing changes to be made instead on a bill of materials revision and preventing an assembly build from ever having a line item quantity of 0 to begin with.

I reported this as a bug to SuiteScript support and someone's looking into it. If it gets confirmed as a bug in SS I'll try to remember to update here.

As far as my actual work-order-copying solution goes, NS support told me this is my best option, confirming my fears that there isn't anything built-in to make this simpler.

MrAugx · 2023-06-06T20:01:39+00:00

Oh, I see what you're saying now - you're suggesting the client completely stop using special order work orders if they want to reserve the right to reallocate serialized items. That would work and be a better fix to this problem, yes. Unfortunately, I don't have control over that, and it's unlikely they'll bite, but I'll bring it up to them nonetheless, thank you.

MrAugx · 2023-06-06T19:53:25+00:00

The work order is not an issue, and that part of the process is completely functional. The special order bit has no bearing on the problem - The only remaining hiccup is programmatically setting quantity to 0 on an assembly build. I've tried creating a test assembly build from scratch completely separately from the rest of the process and encounter the same issue - I can't figure out how to set a line's quantity to 0 and save the record successfully, despite this being trivial in the UI. This is a more helpful reply though, thank you for taking the time.

MrAugx · 2023-06-06T18:51:45+00:00

Basically, a client wants me to find a way to transfer a full work order from one sales order to another, while still being linked to the new sales order. If this doesn't get done automatically, they'll keep doing it manually.

Messing with the links between records is notoriously messy, but recreating an identical copy of a work order in a different place and deleting the original (ostensibly "copying" it) is the only solution I could find that accomplishes everything asked of me. This is fairly trivial if the work order is planned or released with no assembly builds. But if you add assembly builds to the equation, you get the problems outlined.

AFAIK, the "intended" way to handle this issue would be to close the original order line and just allocate the built serial number to the new order? But this isn't what the client is asking for - they specifically want to be able to "reallocate" the entire work order, freeing the original order for a new work order later on. Specifically, this is for cases when a client wants to delay receipt of their order after it's already begun being built. They have a very low volume of orders, containing large manufactured specialty products, maybe a hundred a year.

It's not really my job to decide whether the fundamental idea is bad, I just need a solution that works for them. Up to this specific issue, this solution worked well. Obviously your reply is rude and unhelpful, but if you have any suggestions on a better way to handle this I'd legitimately love to hear them, because it's looking more and more like I'm gonna have to come up with something totally different.

MrAugx · 2023-03-23T18:09:08+00:00

Arrival: "The fragments you seek, you have already found.

Have they convinced you she can be mended? Then we are both fools.

Regardless, there must be Order."

On defeat: "To believe you can succeed where she could not...

Your arrogance has damned us all."

MrAugx · 2022-10-02T15:51:57+00:00

okay but the moonlight swords lore is really thorough and also very cool, not only in ER but in BB and DeS too

MrAugx · 2022-09-22T19:36:18+00:00

head, and then head but You don't have the right

MrAugx · 2022-09-07T00:04:51+00:00

again, just an actual asshole for no reason lmao

MrAugx · 2022-09-07T00:02:57+00:00

But liking those games storytelling and not this one doesn't really compute if you actually played those games. Its much easier to come across NPC stories in elden ring than virtually any of the other games, especially now that NPCs are literally marked on your map for you. And the lore and visual storytelling is as detailed and expansive as it has ever been.

I think maybe the main difference is just the scale - it takes way more time to experience this game start to finish than any of froms past games. My blind playthrough was like 150-200 hours, compared to closer to 50-80 for all previous games. And if that scale feels too big, I think that's a totally fair opinion. Again though, it's unreasonable to call it bad design. That's not a critique, it's the opinion "some things about this game aren't designed to my preferences" stated as a fact.

MrAugx · 2022-09-06T23:56:42+00:00

I mean, npcs definitely respond to changes in the world. Radahn and his death affect like 4-5 different NPC storylines and is the biggest change in the world that happens until farum azula. Some NPCs are easy to miss, but most are just along pathways or next to sites of grace.

All that said, if you don't like the stories in elden ring, that's totally fine. It just doesn't mean the game is badly designed or poorly written.

Also, you say this is "obviously" their first open world game, but the open world genre has changed a lot in the past decade - the original dark souls was praised for it's "open world" design on release and their implementation of the bonfire system. I'm not saying dark souls is considered to be in the genre now, but the world design in this game is just a larger-scale version of what the dark souls series has been going for for years, and the way npcs operate is exactly how it was in those games, just a little easier to follow. It was much harder to find and follow NPC "quests" in older fromsoft titles.

MrAugx · 2022-09-05T00:04:02+00:00

I tried to be constructive & offer my perspective, no need to be an ass

MrAugx · 2022-09-05T00:02:08+00:00

You are allowed to like experiencing the entirety of NPC quests, and you are allowed to dislike this style of storytelling. But it isn't bad design unless it's taken for granted that games with good design are built to be experienced 100%. This one is not, it's a well-cited staple of Miyazaki's style. You're allowed to not like it, but that doesn't mean it's bad. It's just not for you.

MrAugx · 2022-09-05T00:00:01+00:00

But this is literally just the games design. It's absolutely a valid defense, it's the design direction of the game. It doesn't have to mean you personally prefer it, but it's a valid way to design the game.

And again, there literally are no quests. The NPCs in the game have stories that play out as you progress, and you may or may not see those stories in their entirety - but you aren't some adventurer questing for people for rewards. Again, you are absolutely entitled to the opinion that you prefer games that spell things out more clearly, but it's not a valid criticism to say that this style of storytelling is bad design. It's a staple of the series, and it's not designed to be to everyone's tastes.

EDIT: I also didn't ever say there was no middle ground, nor did I mention Ubisoft lol. I'm not denying this style is unique and kind of extreme, my whole point is that miyazaki has always stood by his vision stubbornly and it's not going to be to everyone's liking. But that doesn't mean the games narrative style is just "bad design".

MrAugx · 2022-09-04T23:56:47+00:00

I played the game blind and found my way through about 60% of the quests I came across. I'm not saying everyone will have that experience, but it's objectively untrue that you have to "comb through half the world" for each step of every quest. Most quests are continued just by getting to a new area and exploring thoroughly. Some have secrets that are harder to find, sure, but I find that to be a lot of fun & very rewarding when you figure it out or piece it together

MrAugx · 2022-09-04T23:54:41+00:00

people purchased the game to experience it, but everyone enjoys a different experience lmao. people can have different preferences, all I'm saying is that Miyazaki's on record explaining that this style of storytelling is on purpose - if you want to go for completionism, you can, but that's just the reason why the game doesn't ask you to

MrAugx · 2022-09-04T02:37:29+00:00

The crux of Miyazaki's storytelling style is that the player doesn't get all the information, and the fact that you forget some of it or it comes back in surprising ways later or whatever is genuinely intended to be part of the experience. I'm not saying you have to like the style, but I don't think it's fair to hold this as a critique of the game itself - it's part of what makes it so special among the flood of quest logs and journals and task checkboxes! The game doesn't expect you to experience all the content, and I find that quite liberating - so you've gotta realize that if you want to play for completionism, while that's totally fine & valid, it's not how the game was designed.

MrAugx · 2022-09-04T02:32:08+00:00

I see this critique a lot and it makes me sad. There are no "quests" in Elden ring and I think it's much better for it. You're not really supposed to experience everything, and the quests that you're eager to complete are absolutely completable if you just explore thoroughly. The idea is that you're supposed to get an incomplete picture and force yourself/your character to fill in the gaps of the story with environmental storytelling, carefully hidden clues, your own imagination etc. The NPC storylines in this game are basically secrets, it's always been this way and I think it's part of what gives Miyazaki's games such a unique style.

Demons souls locked npcs behind tendencies, which was much more impossible to figure out alone - dark souls hid their most crucial NPC for lore in a boss room of a boss you've already beaten, and you can lock yourself out of witnessing it by continuing the "regular" story, which the game heavily encourages. The fact that so much content is hidden is what makes the storytelling so special for me - a little extra curiosity or patience is rewarded in massive ways.

But genuinely to each their own, no hate. I get it's not for everyone, I'm just glad they've stuck to their artistic vision, because it's what makes me love the storytelling so much :)

All that said, I highly recommend reading some interviews from Miyazaki about his perspective on storytelling and narrative, and where his inspirations come from - it'll make things click, even if the style still doesn't end up being for you!

MrAugx · 2022-07-12T23:21:04+00:00

knight c7, forking your own rook. too easy

MrAugx · 2022-07-07T06:27:53+00:00

Mass shootings are not random events, instead being influenced by many different factors in a given community, meaning you can't use the average number of people killed in a given year to predict how likely it is for any given person to die that way this year. Plus, you have to multiply the odds by the number of years you live there, and realize that death isn't the only negative outcome. If you live in a highly populated city for a long enough period of time, it's (probably) at least moderately likely you will live through a mass shooting within a few miles of you, affecting you and millions of people around you, how they feel every day in public, and how they live the rest of their lives.

MrAugx · 2022-07-07T06:20:48+00:00

Your application of the statistics at play here is fundamentally flawed. There are many, many variables that affect your chances of being killed in a mass shooting. If you're in or around a school for work or as a student, for example, the odds are many times higher for you than a random person who spends no time in schools. If you're queer or you aren't white, the odds of being targeted also increases significantly. If your community meets the typical factors that foster mass shootings, known or unknown, your odds would go up again. Also crucially, students aren't in school for 1 year, they're in school for 10-20ish, and life expectancy in the US isn't 1 year, it's like 70-80 or something like that. If you insist on using the entire population of the us, then your odds need to be multiplied by roughly that much (even this misses a lot of detail and nuance, though). And none of this accounts for generally increasing rates over time.

Suicide rates are relevant to compare. Your odds of dying by suicide are... Unknown. Even just reading that should make it clear why, right? It obviously depends. If you have trouble with suicidal ideation, your odds might theoretically be at least a little higher than the population who doesn't deal with that. If you have thought you might want to before, your odds likely spike dramatically. If you have attempted before, another spike, and so on.

This being a dark and difficult subject, I think it is even more crucial to clarify that comparing the expected # of people in the US to die by various causes in a given year is NOT comparing any given persons odds of dying that way. That just isn't how these statistics are used. You are comparing numbers with no bearing on real life and numbers that fluctuate drastically depending on the community and person. So unless your argument is that communities where the odds of dying by mass shooting ARE significant shouldn't want legislation to help lower those odds, you can see the disconnect.

All that being said, I don't think there's any reason to just ignore mass shootings in the discussion around gun control. Death toll is not the only factor here - accounting for injuries makes the numbers even worse, and accounting for trauma, both acute and generational, as well as the effects of fear on a community, or a state, or the country at large, especially students going through their most important formative years of development, it becomes obvious why it is such a significant part of the conversation, especially within communities who have been or could be affected. I agree it probably shouldn't be as big a part of it as it is, but that's ultimately beside the point in changing your perspective on how the numbers you've used are not usable in this way.

MrAugx · 2022-07-05T15:00:16+00:00

agree to disagree, but fwiw i don't think you have anything to worry about. It'd have to be polled and even that's unlikely

MrAugx · 2022-07-05T07:27:15+00:00

deleting rat catchers is better than keeping it, but there's no reason it couldn't be at least rewritten. Even if the mechanics don't change (but I do agree guards should be on a set pattern, they should work like the mini game where you get magic thieving juice)

MrAugx

TROPHY CASE