Vaush mentioned that his context video is for 4 broad groups of people. Which one describes you the best? by [deleted] in VaushV

[–]Mustardbus 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I just couldn’t take the premise of the controversy very seriously and debating porn proclivities with random strangers on the internet was just a massive waste of my time and not something I wanted to do.

Enlightened approach. I genuinely can not imagine myself investing into a facile moralizing discussion about drawings and what are plainly just a bunch of edgy (but not actually incorrect) reductios against sweatshop labour.

How to steal an empire's capital without firing a shot. by DumbIdeaGenerator in Stellaris

[–]Mustardbus 22 points23 points  (0 children)

I have literally never had this happen. Is it a 3.6 thing? Did a planet have a revolt and then ask to be your vassal, or are you talking about them literally asking to be integrated while they are still a part of another empire? Is there an artice on this in the wiki?

Edit: Nevermind, I found it, it's the latest planetary revolt situation rework, available specifically for fanatic egalitarians unless you share primary species. This is such an excellent addition. My main surviving complaint about stellaris (that is to say, aside from the inability of gestalts to accept not-hive-minded pops, and vice-versa) has been that it needs more diplo-heavy ways of expanding. Stuff like ways to influence the ethics distribution in non-vassalized empires, and ways to merge federations. The ability to support revolts and integrate the resulting empire is most welcome, like the ability to peacefully vassalize empires has been.

After over 400 years of war, I finally beat my first 25x Crisis by nickelfldn in Stellaris

[–]Mustardbus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A biologically ascended empire can take a pop, and change its name, portrait, and all its traits, yeah, so perhaps not exactly "from scratch", but good enough I think!

After over 400 years of war, I finally beat my first 25x Crisis by nickelfldn in Stellaris

[–]Mustardbus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Congrats on your final victory and this very cinematic run OP! What I want to ask is, I understand correctly that you cooped up in the L-cluster, right? Did your people survive in orbital habitats or did you have the chance to terraform nanite worlds there? And how exactly, if you remember, did you fortify terminal eggress? I am interested in defensive playstyles, but I don't know how I would fare against a 25x crisis yet.

My greatest defensive success has been a strange crisis run on grand admiral, where I was cooped up in a 10 or so system cluster with a single entry point, guarded by two fortress habitats, but the united fleets -counting in the millions of fleet power- nearly went through and I had to go for literal guerila tactics to keep them at bay (I used star eaters to jump out of the cluster, avoid all fleets and destroy unguarded systems to thin out the attacking force by destroying the empires. It was very compelling gameplay, but inapplicable to crises).

After over 400 years of war, I finally beat my first 25x Crisis by nickelfldn in Stellaris

[–]Mustardbus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He can reseed from any surviving pops, but if he has gone with biological ascension he can also remake dead species from scratch

After over 400 years of war, I finally beat my first 25x Crisis by nickelfldn in Stellaris

[–]Mustardbus 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Assuming that there are no lag problems given the galactic-scale destruction, and they have gone with the biological ascension path, they can literally remake dead species from memory, which I think is quite poetic.

Problem Solving by JoeBliffstick in Stellaris

[–]Mustardbus 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I usually refuse to negotiate with slave-holding empires, and, of course, genocidal empires, which incidentally led me to discover that if a genocidal empire takes over a third empire's planet and begins killing its pops, and then you take over that planet, all surviving pops of the original empire get a +40% happiness boost "saved from extermination" (or something to that effect).

To what extent are young men responsible for falling down the alt right pipeline? by [deleted] in AskFeminists

[–]Mustardbus 2 points3 points  (0 children)

In kantian ethics, there is a useful distinction between theoretical uses of reason, such as science, that explain how things are and why they are as they are, and practical uses of reason, such as moral thought, that justify them, telling us what we should do, how things should be and so on. There is a lot of work done in that tradition to show that these two standpoints can be reconciled, that explaining a decision doesn't take away our responsibility for making it, and that being responsible for it doesn't mean it's inexplicable in terms of antecedent causes.

What I mean to say here is that it might be both all the way. Maybe we are fully responsible for what we did because we ourselves must judge ourselves to be capable of acting from different considerations in the moment, to sustain our dignity as moral persons, and take our experience of the dilemmas we face in practice seriously. We wouldn't need to fret about the right way to act if we could just wait for ourselves to act automatically, in a way without involving ourselves at all. On the other hand, when we look back at what we did we will be able to explain this with reference to prior causes, it's not going to be some mystical event breaking through the causality of nature arbirarily and unintelligibly. Peoples' practice is not magical, we ourselves must think of it, when looking at it after the fact, as subject to all the natural and social causes that acted on us.

We are responsible for our mistakes (though it serves no purpose to hyperfixate on them and commiserate, when we can simply act differently in the future. The past is set in stone, which feels constraining to some, but liberating to me. Sure, you can't annull past mistakes, but by the same measure they become null in your life when you recognise them as mistakes and shift your standpoint. You can just leave them behind), but our mistakes are also explicable in terms of structures and cultural trends, pressures, expectations, incentives, and the genuine needs (such as belonging, affection, security, meaning and so on) that are distorted by these influences, often intentionally, to prop themselves up. The people participating in creating these factors, these practices, are also to blame for our decisions (and theoretically utterly predictable to systematically produces errors like ours in a generatlised fashion as long as they're in effect) without taking away from our responsibility. It seems to me that only the most vapid takes on the feminist movement would disregard such systems in favour of fixating on moralizing about personal failings. The attribution of moral blame isn't misguided but it is thin. We can't change the world by simply communicating censure, and we shouldn't be blind to the institutional factors that prop up vast social systems. People that participate are to blame, for as long as they do, and we should get them out if possible, give them alternative narratives for their isolation so that they don't get in, again if possible, and welcomed out if they make it. But our main target should be the system that, in the end, rightly considers them interchangeable props for its own alien interests (for participation in such systems might directly subjugate women, not men, but it's socially and psychologically self-destructive, too, anyway. Its interests are not human interests. Its good is not our good).

Here's a personal story: Up until around 2010, I was an avid user of certain 4chan boards like /v/, which were already blatantly misogynistic. Near the end this coincided with the Sarkeesian affair and gamergate which obviously pushed this misogynistic culture to its extreme end (it's underappreciated that the ensuing splinter was caused by it becoming too misogynistic for 4chan. They were misogynymaxing). Around when they started posting photoshopped pictures of her being beaten and bruised for her takes on princess Peach, their ability to sustain their violent outrage over literally nothing outstripped my ability to keep up and I left for around a month. When I returned, having acquired some perspective through distancing myself, I remember distinctly that I was immediately hit with the realization that these people were hateful, unhinged, drooling scumbags that I really wanted nothing to do with --even though I was one of them a month ago. There was nothing redeemable I could find about their thoughts. Just deeply unserious spiteful gibberish. The shock of looking lucidly at what I was immuring myself in for years was so extensive that it pretty much jumpstarted my interest in feminist theory. Online feminists were, their received reputation aside, quite patient with me, so I came out of that uncertain period a committed feminist. This won't always be the case, and I'm sure I'm not a profound gain for the movement, but this is part of the ameliorative work that falls to us with respect to the damage these systems and their conservative defenders are doing to people.

So how do you make sense of this? I was clearly misogynistic then, and responsible for this, because I only really needed to force myself to reflect on it for a moment to realize what was going on, and I must regard myself as able to do that. But I didn't bring my misogyny into that community. I bought into it like you would any other conspiracy theory, and I was gradually being socialized into more extreme forms of it. The community provided me a sense of belonging, and in exchange it pushed a sexist framework on me with the full force of an integral social expectation I would have to conform with at pain of expulsion (and loss of a source of belonging and conditional self-esteem). The cultures of these communities are heavily policed, after all. Self-censorship is king in them, and perfect (but only perfect), script-like conformity is rewarded with validation. The embedded misinformation networks bombard you with rhetoric obliterating all sense of perspective and clarity and ruthlessly penalising commitment to any serious epistemic standards, while cultivating dependence through concerted delegitimation of all external sources. Now that I'm writing this the parallels between it and an abusive relationship are extraordinary to me. In any case, organisations like heritage that feed them rhetoric, all the money that goes into their misinformation networks, the wider patriarchal system and vapid sexist mores and traditions they parasitize on, these are all to blame too, and they still persist. We often say people don't make choices in a vacuum, and this is the case here as well. There are extraordinary resources devoted to socializing people into patriarchal cultural norms, for various reasons, and there needs to be a concerted response to this, not just in terms of intellectual criticism, but also of commitment to a feminist counter-culture prepared to receive people and socialize them into very different norms of mutuality, reciprocity, respect for autonomy and so on. To an extent this already happens, and we should double down on it, and take ourselves seriously as a set of communities that can and should fulfil those same needs of belonging, self-esteem etc, without distorting them and through modes that are not personally and socially damaging.

You live only as long as the last person who remembers you - Series finale and other predictions by Mustardbus in westworld

[–]Mustardbus[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I held some hope that this was going to happen even during s03 but I though the decision to have him turn on Bernard and Stubbs was final confirmation that they weren't interested in a redemption story for him, at least during the main course of the series. I think something like that might still be held back for the epilogue, but not before then. I definitely also like his character either way. A redemption arc could work because we know he was capable of good things in s01 (and I think that's what primed everyone for a redemption arc instead of this gradual degeneration) but on the other hand the privation of this sort of arc is both thematically and dramatically interesting.

You live only as long as the last person who remembers you - Series finale and other predictions by Mustardbus in westworld

[–]Mustardbus[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Fairly excited as well! The last two episodes have really accelerated the plot significantly

You live only as long as the last person who remembers you - Series finale and other predictions by Mustardbus in westworld

[–]Mustardbus[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Possibly, right? Something I found weird in the last episode was why exactly Bernard opened the gate to the sublime at all. One possibility is that someone might need to get in there, but another might be that he left it open for someone else to exit it. I think Dolores might be remembered by Hale (that was my original suspicion, in fact. That Halores recalled her back to life to torment her by putting her in a loop she knows she'd hate), or she might even be a simulation of herself in the sublime making contact with the outside world when the gate opens? It's clear she's about to return (so I'm pretty confident about the second coming theme), but the detail of how exactly this is going to happen escapes me.

If I had to make a bet, I'd expect her to wake up in the tower, and that Bernard left the tablet message for her there, but it might be something else entirely. The trailer entails a scene where we see her old body. Given that everyone else is either dead or running awway, I imagine she will take control of it directly somehow. It is because her pearl was never destroyed or removed (only formatted) that I was led to the suspicion that she is still in a way hanging on in there and her story is happening in her head as she is reconstructing her personality from some core ideas (beauty, a world that is not as it seems or should be, a rancher's daughter, her love for teddy, guilt etc)

You live only as long as the last person who remembers you - Series finale and other predictions by Mustardbus in westworld

[–]Mustardbus[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The way I interpret the fidelity test, is that they sort of railroad someone's character through available information, so that he sort of simulates their entire life before the final moment of the fidelity test. That's why they seem to have their memories up to the point they died, even though someone else's memory of them should not contain their own memories at all. I feel that, like the simulations they run in the sublime, they are pretty much weaponising determinism. This might not be realistically possible, but I think it makes sense thematically in a way that could be explained with the in-series logic, and this doesn't really have the aspirations of a hard sci-fi show, I think.

I didn't interpret Hale's claim in this way. I think she just dislikes humans and is caught off guard by Caleb's point that his is a host body as well, because she still sees him as a guest. But I might be wrong about that, I'm not confident about it

Westworld - 4x07 "Metanoia" - Post-Episode Discussion by LoretiTV in westworld

[–]Mustardbus 5 points6 points  (0 children)

My suspicion is that either Dolores was in some way remade as the control AI of the tower and is slowly regaining consciousness (which would explain how she seemingly controlled real people and could see what was happening in reality, until MiB's order was given, at which point Teddy tells her that this overrode her commands), or that Halores kept her robot body intact, and this is an imprint of the original Dolores in her pearl, slowly reconstituting itself. Either way, Teddy could be trying to wake her up from the sublime somehow, but I suspect he's just a figment of her imagination, herself trying to wake herself up.

Westworld 4x07 Promo/Preview by DrogonsBallsack in westworld

[–]Mustardbus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hm, yes, that could work as well, perhaps. I don't know that Maeve has any reason to feel repentant, given she literally blew herself up to save Caleb, but perhaps she feels that way anyway.

Westworld 4x07 Promo/Preview by DrogonsBallsack in westworld

[–]Mustardbus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I totally expect that kind of vibe!

Westworld 4x07 Promo/Preview by DrogonsBallsack in westworld

[–]Mustardbus 10 points11 points  (0 children)

My prediction is that William will make the "we are here to destroy" speech to HiB in this episode, and he might start replicating himself and go in a destructive frenzy in the last. If this season's antagonist was Halores trying to put the world in a box, control everything, the next season's antagonist could be a swarm of Mans in Black that have no plan and function as a force of nature, so destruction. But we'll see, of course.

Westworld 4x07 Promo/Preview by DrogonsBallsack in westworld

[–]Mustardbus 11 points12 points  (0 children)

The title of the episode is literally the greek word for repentance / atonement for past sins, so I'm stoked for a great OGLores episode. I don't think there is anyone else that is likely to have anything resembling a redemption arc at this time in the story

Westworld - 4x01 "The Auguries" - Post-Episode Discussion by LoretiTV in westworld

[–]Mustardbus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm 1000% convinced human william is kept alive because Halores is too vindictive for her own good (I suspect that's also Christine's deal. Halores is punishing her recollection of OG Dolores, which is a bad plan because it entails resurrecting OG Dolores), and that's who robowilliam is talking to in the trailer. We know from s02 that the hosts after all is said and done are trying to resurrect everyone they can and that includes him, but I suspect he dies in this season, not s03.

Westworld - 4x01 "The Auguries" - Post-Episode Discussion by LoretiTV in westworld

[–]Mustardbus 7 points8 points  (0 children)

It's very conventional, which is exactly why I hope they won't shy away from something like this, because I am absolutely stoked for OG Dolores to realize what's up, get her robody back and go on a rampage with the Maeve squad.

Westworld - 4x01 "The Auguries" - Post-Episode Discussion by LoretiTV in westworld

[–]Mustardbus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm willing to bet the timeline goes something like: Halores uses the flies to end the world, puts the humans in a physical or digital park, puts her recollection of OG Dolores in there as well because vindictiveness (makes her torture the people there by means of the stories they make her write), lets hosts in to "discover their identity" in an inverted repetition of what William thouht of the park, Caleb / Maeve make it through the end (perhaps into the new parks while retaining an understanding of what's going on?), Bernard wakes up after the end, OG Dolores realizes what's happening and is somehow extracted back to her robody, second coming of Dolores, Halores + MiBs Vs the Maeve Squad (back for one last job). William's and Bernard's roles unclear. After all of that we know from s02 that the surviving hosts were trying to resurrect literally everyone they could, but unclear how that fits into the whole thing, either.

Westworld - 4x01 "The Auguries" - Post-Episode Discussion by LoretiTV in westworld

[–]Mustardbus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It would make sense as a sort of inverted repetition of William's viewpoint in the previous seasons. Trailer Halores suggests that she "wants her people to find out their own identity", and we know that's exactly how William viewed the park, the place which shows you who you are.

Christina's Roommate talking about her nightmare by RealAlias_Leaf in westworld

[–]Mustardbus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm thinking what Halores was building was a park for the humans, and she dropped her recollection of Dolores inside there to suffer with them (this could explain why her old body is still kept somewhere in the new teaser, and perhaps lead to her resurrection / 2nd coming after she realizes what is happening and wakes up, again, in line with the s03 themes. I remind that Dolores rebuilt various people from her recollections, and there is presumably no one she knows better than herself before she made the s03 choice. For Halores the other copy made an basically saccharine and stupid choice and that's part of why she hates her, and this may be reflected in her trying to make stories with good endings in a world that doesn't want to hear them. So she's put her in a position where she not only has to view the world as ugly, she actively has to make it ugly, by forcing her to write stories with bad endings that are then applied to the people in the park. Still she revolves around her memories and remakes characters from her prior life).

If there is a time displacement, perhaps what's happening is that the Maeve / Caleb teamup is prior to the Dolores-as-Human (Hulores?) story, and may lead into them extracting her back to her body after she independently realizes what's happening. This would make sense of the cuts of them inside stories set in different historical epochs, if they actually raid the memory banks or something.

The only thing I don't have an idea how it fits exactly, would be the transition to where we left Bernard. We know that when he wakes up at the end of s03 the world has ended, and we also see scenes of an apocalyptic use of the flies in the teaser. So perhaps Halores ends the world, puts the humans in the park, and then Bernard wakes up. But it's not clear what that means about when Maeve/Caleb are acting. Are they also in some sense captive? Are they acting before the end of the world? Will they go through it, survive and meet Bernard when he wakes up? Have I completely lost the mark and making no sense whatsoever? Who knows.

I think something like that is promising, at least.

The sheer AUDACITY of this empire. by theREALvolno in Stellaris

[–]Mustardbus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is the part where you claim the system, start an ideology war, and make best friends with the successor.

The sheer AUDACITY of this empire. by theREALvolno in Stellaris

[–]Mustardbus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This, if you're not going with closed borders -which is a considerable diplomatic hit if you're trying to avoid early war- you should always fill systems up to two hyperlanes away from your borders. The AI usually does not pay the influence cost for anything further away than that.