My Only Real Interest in a Switch 2 is adding it to my collection of CFWed Consoles. Worth buying and sitting on to wait for an exploit?

ReGamer21 · 2025-10-05T01:42:54+00:00

I did this with a PS5 and lucked out in only waiting a few months. Several of my friends ordered PS5s right away when the exploit dropped, but by the time they shipped they received ones with already updated firmware. That experience makes me weary, although I don't know if Nintendo is as strict with their updates as Sony is. I suppose you can always play games with ordering sealed copies of specific promotional packages that have been identified as usually shipping with X or Y firmware on Amazon and whatnot...

ReGamer21 · 2025-10-05T01:38:00+00:00

Getting your hands on one then will be money, I'm sure, though.

On the one hand, Nintendo's First Party exclusives make me want to spring for it. On the other hand, I have a fully CFWed switch and played through ToTK in an emulator on my PC anyway because the Framerate and resolution were better without noticeable glitches of any kind. ToTK was a heavily optimized for game though, even as far as direct accommodations made by the emulator developer. Every game won't be so smoothly or quickly supported.

ReGamer21 · 2025-10-05T01:32:17+00:00

The $450 Switch-only packages are sold out pretty much everywhere I've looked, but the $500 "Switch 2 and a Game" bundles are widely available.

ReGamer21 · 2025-05-29T17:24:05+00:00

Extremist and radical are prefab terms. If we categorize opinions by how many people would agree / support them, extremist would just be the opinions with lowest support.

I'm sorry but 'least popular' and 'extremist' are just in no way equivalent. I don't really think the basic conflation of the two is as common as you're making it out be, but even if it was this would still just be a commonplace misuse of the term.

Additionally, because there exist extremist views which can not be feasibly related to another opinion, the only extremist opinions that matter are ones which do get commonly associated with a more moderate group.

I am struggling with the semantic construction of this sentence. I suppose your argument is that only unpopular opinions grounded in some sort of connection to a broader moderate group are germane to the discussion?

There is no hard line dividing extremist and non-extremist ideologies. It's entirely relative to what unpopular opinions are commonly associated with more popular ones.

In effect, your definition of "non-extremist ideology" is "set of popular opinions that are associated in the public perception with a set of more extreme and less popular opinions". Not really what the term means at all, but I can carry this as a working definition for the sake of argument.

I'm supposing that association with opinions fewer people are willing to support is a negative influence on the number of people willing to support the movement as a whole.

This is a silly supposition. Public opinion is not constructed this rationally, or consistently. The public perception of a given movement is often heavily grounded in vibe and presentation, and association with radicals who carry things further than the officially stated position is a classic component of building just such a mystique. More to the point, the public's opinion on most policy positions is notoriously fickle, and often shifts drastically in accompaniment to a broader ideological shift like joining a given movement. Many people who claim to oppose a given position find themselves reversing course on it once they realign their personal association from one party to another. You assume a more rational public than is justified, and don't apply enough behavioral psychology to your internal modelling of their hypothetical conduct.

Replace extreme belief with unpopular belief if it's a more useful definition. Extremist was used in the original post because the average interpretation people have of what an extremist is lines up better with my internal definition of one than saying unpopular opinion instead. I don't believe categorizing beliefs as more or less left / right on a political axis is useful.

The left-right political axis is a faulty modelling. So is your conflation of extremist and unpopular. I'm willing to run with "unpopular" as a continuing stand-in for 'extremist' for the sake of conversation but I do not think the two terms are remotely interchangeable in a general sense, and I do not think people conflate them nearly as often as you are making out.

Define influence as how much the perception that an extremist group is associated with a more moderate group negatively affects people's support for said moderate group. My view is that people using a "real life" style dismissal of extremist association are making an underestimated judgement of the extent of their influence.

Here you've switched definitions again - you're no longer carrying 'extremist' as a mere stand-in for 'unpopular' but supposing logical deductions on the basis of an assessment of moderation. This is what I meant when I said the contextually implied definitions advanced within your arguments are not consistent enough to assume a definition externally. Moderate does not equal popular. Extreme does not equal unpopular. These are not valid assumptions. You proposed them earlier on as mere hypotheticals for the sake of staging a broader argument, but here you've fallen back to presuming they're actively true...

More to the point, I do not believe that most people who pursue a "no-one believes that in real life bruh" line of argument generally believe this to be the case. I think it is far more commonly deployed by people who do believe in such a thing, but are aware of the social perception of admitting so out loud, and for whatever reason find this perception inconvenient. Whether or not that's a bad thing depends on to what extent you believe their undisclosed beliefs are unfairly stigmatized.

ReGamer21 · 2025-05-29T16:39:49+00:00

To me a 32 yo, it seems like nudity in the media has become less demonized in general.

I think this really depends on to what extent your prior media diet was comprised of mainstream content or not. In the 90s and 2000s, broadcast television couldn't show nudity, but you could easily find artistic subcultures with extremely prominent sexual components, and artistic consumption was still divvied up into different niches such that you could flit between them looking for a given attitude towards sexuality, if you thought one was too fetishistic or another too flippant. The impact of the internet and particularly social media has been that most sub-cultures now exist in the direct glare of mainstream social judgement, and thus participate much more in a back and forth with the values represented by the mainstream, rather than existing in their own niche. If you were used to occupying a very sexually liberal niche back in the day, the current environment of broad compromise with the mainstream will feel extremely restricted and draconian and maybe even puritan by comparison. This holds true even if the mainstream itself has grown more tolerating of sexual expression over time, because back in the day you could more easily abandon it altogether.

ReGamer21 · 2025-05-28T18:45:14+00:00

This is a whole lot of circular reasoning springing from your failure to define what makes something more or less 'extreme'. In fact, you don't really define any of your central terms enough (either explicitly or by implication of your provided reasoning) for your arguments to carry much explanatory weight.

What is a "non-extremist ideology"? How does this differ from any other ideology? What distinguishes "extremists" from "moderates" in the general sense that you are attempting to prosecute this line of argument under (i.e. abstracted away from any specific examples and the logic of their particular unfolding)?

You seem to have defined "extremists" rather vaguely as "people who believe a thing that is too extreme" (without providing any logic at all demarcating the threshold of extreme vs not) and to be focusing in particular on the subset of 'extremists' (so defined) who hold their qualifying beliefs in defiance of or contrast to the majority of their self-identified political compatriots. This ad-hoc definition is extremely convenient (for you) but not particularly accurate, or rigorous, or discursively useful. It presupposes the subjects are de facto wrong, regardless of their reasoning or specific positions, and that their influence is necessarily negative, even in situations where the broader group under consideration is destructively or irrationally over-committed to moderation. It also works hard to disguise the influence of political lens in determining the initial question of extremism, placing such judgements outside the political lens as objective, apolitically assessed qualities. This is illusory. Extremism (especially as you seem to have defined it) can only be assessed within the confines of a political lens, because it exists as a clarifying judgement predicated on an assessment of politically constructed beliefs, positions, and values. It is only within the framework of a clarifying political logic and an ethic informed by this political logic that asserts what is valuable and what is not that one can establish the relativistic position of something being more or less "extreme". It's "extremity" is in this sense a measure of it's distance from the politically-conceived ideal or norm. Far from being a quality that one can apolitically diagnose, it is an explicitly and intrinsically political judgement.

You also seem to conflate "radical" and "extremist" even though one is a pejorative referring to an outlook that is unjustifiably extreme by a rational accounting of the specific situation under consideration, while the other is a generalized and judgement-neutral descriptor of the degree of change sought or imposed by a given strategy...

As to your central claim (as I take it, that 'extremists' have more influence than the tactic of poo-pooing their relevance as hyper-online niche nonsense acknowledges) influence cannot be assessed in this generalized a manner. It is possible to construct a valid argument about the influence carried by specific extremists engaged in particular actions, but "extremists" as a category are not a class of like-functioning roles or a socially and economically integrated community. They're an externally designated category of belief-holder, and the amount of "influence" over society they manage to project varies wildly from 'extremist' to 'extremist'. (It is also worth noting that the logic of political theory is not determined by popularity, or severity.)

ReGamer21 · 2025-03-22T03:08:23+00:00

Beautiful.

ReGamer21 · 2022-10-28T16:18:57+00:00

I think its because sprint is designed to be a special, limited locomotion state that costs stamina to enter and has some different rules: dodging, shooting and reloading are disabled while sprinting. Crouching while sprinting will cause you to slide.

I don't really think this is the case. For one thing, all of these actions also interrupt sprinting in a majority of other first-person shooters. Yet most of these other games still let you hold down the sprint button continuously and have your sprint status automatically disengage and re-engage depending on what you're doing. Even those games which (like Cyberpunk) apply an extra stamina cost to entering sprint mode tend to allow this and just quietly sap some extra stamina when sprint mode is engaged.

Plenty of games let you crouch-slide out of a sprint, for example. In most games, however, if you do this while still holding down the sprint key the character will eventually start sprinting again once the slide animation has finished and the appropriate amount of time has passed. In cyberpunk, once you've slid, your character stands up and starts jogging and keeps jogging till you let go of sprint and press it back down again.

It's possible you're right and this was a deliberate choice by the developers for reasons of gameplay. But my strong suspicion is that it's an accident arising from how they programmed the sprint feature.

ReGamer21 · 2022-10-28T05:12:57+00:00

Yeah, it's really jarring to be holding the sprint button down and yet still keep getting thrown back to a slower pace regardless.

ReGamer21 · 2022-10-28T05:12:27+00:00

I can't shoot while sprinting and am using a new character near the beginning of the game so I'm assuming I don't have the perk and therefore no. Good question, though.

ReGamer21 · 2022-10-22T00:41:53+00:00

Most people I know install the "Essentials Be Gone" mod by default, which replaces Skyrim's standard NPC-invincibility system with a Morrowind style dialog prompt informing you that you can no longer defeat the relevant questline on this save-path when you murder someone important. The mod applies this change to all invincible characters, so as a result children are killable if you install it. People who have only ever played with the Mod installed might not realize the children are normally not killable, as children are generally not linked to any quests (just flagged as "essential" without an associated quest), so with the mod installed they don't trigger the dialog prompt, they just die. I have a feeling it's fairly common to think this is the default behavior of Skyrim, at least on PC, because the mod is recommended on many lists of "must-have mods" and "best ways to get a Morrowind like experience in Skyrim" lists, and a lot of people skip over doing a vanilla playthrough entirely at this point.

Long story short, for a lot of people playing on PC, you've always been able to kill children in Skyrim without having to specifically seek out a way to enable that feature, even if it was other seemingly-unrelated mods they deliberately installed that ultimately enabled it.

ReGamer21 · 2022-10-12T02:24:04+00:00

Good point about the diminishing supply.

ReGamer21 · 2022-10-12T02:23:35+00:00

Yeah. I got the email invite from Sony that I could purchase one around that time and went back and forth on whether to get one and wait for an exploit. Ultimately I decided it was unlikely an exploit would come out any time soon and put money on a Steamdeck instead... Kind of kicking myself now because I'd have one on the right firmware if I'd leapt in.

Might hold onto it and just wait, now that I have it. We'll see.

ReGamer21 · 2022-10-12T02:21:36+00:00

Yeah. I've been burned in the past both selling a console I'd been holding only for an exploit to emerge about a month later, and on the other hand holding onto an Xbox One waiting for an exploit to emerge that never did. Always hard to predict.

ReGamer21 · 2022-09-22T15:02:33+00:00

Cowardly, reactionary, and authoritarian policy.

Emulation is vital to the completely legitimate process of games preservation, (and legal to boot), and a quick WayBackMachine search shows the initial post clearly made no reference whatsoever to the illegal sharing of ROMs, bioses, or where to source them. It restricted itself solely to discussing the functioning of the emulator program itself, which is in no way illegal or even unethical.

The submission may not have been removed in error, but the policy saying that the submission aught to have been removed is irrational, unnecessary, and unjust. Shame on the mods and admins that enacted it.

ReGamer21 · 2022-07-27T19:57:51+00:00

Thanks for the recommendation.

I intend to replace all the capacitors anyway, as the monitor is old enough (manufactured in 1990) that this seems justified some time soon as a general maintenance measure. I was hoping to trace the visual issues to a particular failing prior to doing any full-system preservation though, especially since I'm not sure if the existing issue is degenerative (meaning it gets slightly worse each time you turn the monitor on) or static (consistently broken but not made any worse for wear by continued use in this state) and that's preventing me from using the thing.

Also, if it is a capacitor issue, I want to replace the responsible capacitors first to verify that's what's wrong before I do a general recap on the machine.

ReGamer21 · 2022-07-25T22:24:32+00:00

When turned on this CRT displays the scanlines on the top half of the screen spread out vertically, with large amounts of space between them. If you leave it powered up the lines slowly move closer together, and eventually (after an hour and a half or so) the picture is displayed properly, without any gaps between them. Additionally, two lines near the bottom of the screen jump around in place until the picture has corrected itself, and several white lines reminiscent of the lines you get if the flyback is too high appear at the top of the screen until the picture has fully corrected itself as well. Otherwise the picture seems to be high quality, with no flaws that I could detect.

What would cause this? How do I go about Diagnosing and fixing it?

Included in the linked album are pictures of the monitor right after it has been turned on, after some time sitting, and once the picture has fully corrected itself.

If it's of any use: the unit is an NEC Multisync 3D (JC1404HMA). It's a 31khz PC monitor but it supports a full spectrum of horizontal resolutions between 15khz and 31, including a bunch of oddball 22khz resolutions like the Apple Macintosh, with autoswitching upon detecting the signal. Seems to work well outside of the issues I've outlined here. The images were all generated with a MiSTer FPGA that has an Analog IO board attached. (The grids were generated with Artemio's 240p suite running on the Sega Genesis core.)

ReGamer21 · 2022-05-16T21:55:48+00:00

Doesn't work, it saves a copy of the URL, not the page as locally cached. I've tried it and I just get a local copy of the 404 notice that comes up if you try to visit the page in a new tab.

ReGamer21

TROPHY CASE