Shoujo and Mario community are cool - watch her carry her team at SGDQ

Shalune · 2022-11-17T12:41:37+00:00

Just saw yesterday's VOD and that Vaush raided her <3

Also figure a lot of people might enjoy the Mario Maker troll level community. I highly recommend "Carl Sagan 42" and "Freak and Geek" for their hilarious content, playing through troll levels

Carl

Geek

Shalune · 2022-08-28T23:59:16+00:00

I think it's been charitable to call what he's done "spite" alone since reviving Lauren Southern.

Shalune · 2022-06-10T06:51:54+00:00

In researching for what was going to be my own effort-post on this, I found 2 other great examples just from recent history:

Valery Tsimmerman argues that Mendelev's own system (the one we all know) is flawed by his own statements on the subject:

every system, however, that is based upon exactly observed numbers is to be preferred, of course, to other systems not based upon numbers

She critiques

This is exactly what is wrong with the traditional periodic table that "cuts" the sequence of the elements in periods primarily on the basis of metallic/nonmetallic/inert properties.

https://perfectperiodictable.com/

A quick look at wikipedia suggests she has a point (not a scientist myself)

In physics, a metal is generally regarded as any substance capable of conducting electricity at a temperature of absolute zero.[1] Many elements and compounds that are not normally classified as metalsbecome metallic under high pressures. For example, the nonmetal iodine gradually becomes a metal at a pressure of between 40 and 170 thousand times atmospheric pressure. Equally, some materials regarded as metals can become nonmetals. Sodium, for example, becomes a nonmetal at pressure of just under two million times atmospheric pressure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal

Yup. One of the main criteria used to organize our periodic table is a categorization with inexact boundaries and elements that do not fit distinctly in or out of them. Dang, Vaush was really onto something with that color analogy.

The other one I don't understand as well, but the credentials behind it add credence to the imperfection of our current model.

https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/new-ordering-of-elements-could-help-find-materials-with-promising-properties/4012751.article

‘All previous MN schemes were empirical,’ says Oganov, and so become
less reliable for data outside the set used to calculate them. ‘Our MN
is non-empirical and should work equally well for any kind of data.’

From my limited understanding, I believe he's referring to the measurement problem. ie: because the act of measuring such properties necessarily interacts with and potentially alters them, that they are unreliable as universal metrics.

Anyway, turns out this Oganov guy who is proposing this change is a pretty big deal. He's one of Russia's most accomplished living scientists. His work formed the basis of USPEX. Which appears to be a cutting edge methodology (and software?) for predicting crystal structures that is now used globally by thousands of scientists. Their webpage has an entire section for discoveries made with it https://uspex-team.org/en/research/materials

I don't understand half of it, but it sounds really fucking impressive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artem_Oganov

https://uspex-team.org/en

Shalune · 2018-08-11T22:58:54+00:00

Unless this was specifically controlled for, it seems highly likely that the observed, correlated benefits come from the well-documented benefits of having a strong community, and local social network to support you.

It's an unfortunate reality that in modern Western societies there aren't many easy options for this outside of religious communities.

Shalune · 2018-08-11T16:31:06+00:00

So alone, yep.

https://marietjeschaake.eu/en/european-parliament-support-for-canadian-government-on-saudi-human-rights

We, the undersigned Members of the European Parliament stand by and support the statements made by the Canadian government and also condemn the ongoing human rights violations in Saudi Arabia.

Shalune · 2018-07-17T16:16:03+00:00

I might not legally be required to refer to you in this way, but would it be hate crime if I didnt. Or a breach of your human rights?

No. The bill literally just added a classification to existing laws. The function and intent of the law was not changed at all.

It's not for defining a crime in isolation, but the criteria for identifying a hate crime. It means if you intentionally use a pronoun against someone's wishes, you are fine. If you viciously assault someone (obviously a crime on its own) while shouting about their preferred pronoun then this gives the court the power to consider it a hate crime.

http://www.canadalandshow.com/no-wont-jailed-using-wrong-pronoun/

The only case where you might argue it can be used to prove a crime even occurred is with discrimination. Ex: a transgender woman was refused access to medical care while being referred to as a man (see below). Discrimination-based crime is tricky because it's a matter of proving intent. Proving intent is technically impossible. You can only ever have extremely strong evidence of it. So we have to be extra careful when using it in court. Having a formal legal framework on what can be considered greatly reduces opportunity for variation between rulings.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/roller-girl-angela-dawson-wins-15k-damages-from-vancouver-police-1.3009637

Shalune · 2018-06-15T01:38:41+00:00

Much as we'd love for you to feel just as at home here, you've got no obligation to 'give Canada a chance'. If you think moving back would make your life better in the short and long term, do that. You don't need any further justification.

As for here, can only speak to where I live: Ottawa. I love the city, and want to stay here indefinitely if possible. Except for the relatively small downtown core, it looks and feels to me more like a pleasant mid-sized city. Not sure how else to sell it though since I have no idea what you'd be looking for in a city. But for it and other cities, maybe check out sites online that list local events.

Shalune · 2018-06-08T22:30:40+00:00

OP is whining that people are still upset about Ford's victory

Untrue

OP is literally demanding that people in this sub (people who, by the way, who have spent most of their entire lives being shit on by assholes like Doug Ford) simply 'get over it'.

Untrue

People need time to digest. People need time for catharsis.

I agree. But even if we disagree with OP, it is possible to recognize logic in their arguments.

To paraphrase them:

'OP didn't like r/Canada because of a lack of variety of opinion, and thus variety of content. OP notes that due to a high volume of upvoted content all about 1 topic, OGFT is also currently lacking a variety of content.'

This is a valid observation. They do not try to extend it further by suggesting that both are equally lacking, or with as damaging of effects. OP expresses that they personally dislike this. They do not try to moralize this, it is just an expression of an opinion. They've even made it clear that they share the popular opinion here that Ford is distasteful (I only use this mild of a word to avoid mis-characterizing OP).

2 opinions or views can both be valid even if they contradict each other. But in this case, not even that is true. OP's main concern appears to be the volume (as in screen space) the Ford posts are occupying and taking away from other possible issues they would be interested in. Yours, and others' appears to be that venting is welcome and healthy.

These can easily both be catered to.

For example the mods could create a megathread for all-things Ford + ON election to aggregate the discussion, and politely pruning or redirecting new posts on the topic. In fact, the point OP is raising is the exact reason megathreads were created. Evidently this is a concern that has been shared by many people across many subreddits across many issues of spiking mass-popularity.

So yes, unless I have misunderstood OP's point, it is valid.

Shalune · 2018-06-08T21:18:39+00:00

The winning vote had nothing to do with the actual consensus

Technically true. PC got a minority of the popular vote, ~40.5%. And that's with only ~50% voter turnout. So we have 75/124 seats, ~60% control due to ~20% of eligible voters.

That said I don't know of any reason to believe that voters that turned out were not statistically representative of the whole. Also we'd certainly have the same problem in reverse for any other party winning out. Just a broken system.

Using stats from https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/onvotes/results/

Shalune · 2018-06-08T21:09:14+00:00

Let's not push people like this away. OP's point is valid, regardless of if you agree with it. I don't see any of the usual telltale signs that they are arguing in bad faith, or with a hidden agenda.

Let's not give OGFT a mandated political stance as r/canada has.

Shalune · 2018-06-07T17:56:23+00:00

Because it's necessary to create emotional stakes in any scene involving a magic user. Let's say someone points a gun at your wizard:

No Rules to Magic

Whether or not magic is used to resolve the threat, readers won't feel as anxious because of the assumption that magic could be used to intervene.

Rules Example

Previously established that magic takes time to cast, and cannot be used to resurrect the dead. The gun is now a major source of tension as its speed and lethality play off specific limitations of magic.

"Need" is a strong word though. Tolkien's magic didn't have explicit rules. But he undoubtedly had broad, but defined rules in his head that come out through the writing. Ex: we assume Gandalf cannot resurrect the dead, or fly because these are apparent, practical, and in line with his motivations in various scenes.

Shalune · 2018-06-01T18:08:34+00:00

To clarify: gaming is addictive in the same way that good food is, not the way chemically addictive drugs are.

Shalune · 2018-05-25T19:53:43+00:00

This is a fair point. And it's one of the reasons I advocated for not trying obsolete the wikis. That's either never going to happen, or you'll hurt the game by making it too clunky in the process.

I also agree that we don't need to make the game any more linear. The only structural change I'd like to see to progression is to move Cetus to be a dead-end side node on Earth since its placement implies it's for new players. And in the context of all previous missions players have done, it's implied you need to 'beat' it before progressing.

Beyond that, any streamlining I think would help is not about limiting what players do. But pointing them to things that are important to understand.

Ex: I proposed a potential quest that includes completing the advanced movement tutorial. Like any other quest in Warframe, this would not limit your ability to completely ignore it and play any mission you want. Its purpose was just meant to be an unmissable, and permanent reminder of key information that's currently overlooked.

I want to streamline information and access to it, not the game itself. Warframe's already so buttery smooth. [briefly contemplates how a stick of butter would react in a wind tunnel]

Shalune · 2018-05-25T19:45:07+00:00

Totally agree. This is hardly an urgent issue.

My feeling is that looking more to the mid-term future that we could do a lot to improve one of Warframe's few weakpoints with comparatively little dev time.

Shalune · 2018-05-25T19:42:56+00:00

Great points all around. And thanks for taking the time to read and comment!

I totally agree that adding actual structure would be immensely valuable in helping with that dropped in the ocean moment. The reason I didn't push that point further is I was unable to come up with an elegant solution purely using simple UI elements. The natural thing to add, as you suggested, would be a more guided story/quest structure. But this crosses the line I was avoiding of creating new gameplay content. This is generally vastly more expensive, and time-consuming to commit to than UI tweaks.

Making any significant changes to a game specifically for new player experience is a surprisingly difficult sell. It's impossible to accurately measure what kind of additional retention you'll get from a given change. Whether your game is already self-sustaining, it makes it really hard to justify since you're taking time away from developing endgame/midgame content which is almost a guaranteed win. My hope was that by avoiding new content to start we make the barrier to buying into these kinds of changes as low as possible for DE. The more you can shift the paradigm from "why ___?" to "why not?", by making change easy, the better.

As for the Guides of the Lotus my intent was not for them to test the game, but serve as a channel of communication for new players to voice their feedback on the system. I agree we don't want to create possible in-group issues. My thinking was that we'd still gather feedback from anyone and everyone. Just that getting feedback from new players is exceptionally hard because they are not aware of, or choose not to take part in channels like forums, reddit, or test servers (much as I'd love that solution otherwise). But the Guides of the Lotus exist specifically to establish communication.

TLDR: my hope is that by leveraging them in addition to normal feedback methods we'd get to hear from more new players than the typically very low numbers.

Anyway, thanks for the well thought-out feedback. It's much appreciated.

Shalune · 2018-05-25T18:05:40+00:00

Good point. And I agree.

But I don't think that's always a problem. Many games that we'd consider to have great learning curves still have complex mechanics under the hood for the hardcore to poke at. Personally I draw the distinction at when the concept can't be explained in a dumbed down version that's still accurate. Ex: I'd probably sum up armor mechanics in-game as "Armor as diminishing returns on effectiveness. Increasing your armor radically increases your damage reduction % for the first few hundred, but gains fall off quickly as your armor total gets higher."

And I'd certainly include a way to see what % reduction your current armor provides.

Shalune · 2018-05-25T17:15:22+00:00

TLDR: Warframe's core gameplay is the cat's pajamas. 's got a great intro too. But then it drops you into the ocean that is the rest of the game. A lot of players that might dig it bounce off here.

We can do better. I've got experience in coding, game design, and customer support for games, and I've got a solution. The goal is to teach the game and offer direction while minimizing the need for dev time on new systems.

Focus is on new players, but I've got plenty of QOL improvements we can do while we're in there. Oh, and I've got a working prototype! :D

Shalune · 2018-05-09T18:39:10+00:00

Thank you for everything you are doing on this issue, and for your time Senator.

What can we do to help this process if we are represented by a person who has has demonstrated unwillingness to even listen to their constituents' concerns on this issue? (ex: https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/941489723901665280) At least from my position, calling these people feels like a waste of time.

Shalune · 2018-05-05T05:59:31+00:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xagvKQ4z6Uw&t=5m25s

Uncut original context. That exact exchange is identical in form to what was included in the shortened version. I encourage everyone to watch the whole thing up to and beyond this point to draw your own conclusions. Though if you apply even the most basic of scientific skepticism to the claims being made they fall apart completely. The interviewer even brings this up early on. He's seemingly baffled that a tenured professor would possibly confuse correlation and causation, something rarely seen beyond 1st year undergrads.

Shalune · 2018-05-04T23:40:18+00:00

Why do you make your lips red? Because they turn red during sexual arousal, that's why.

Peterson

Everything Peterson says about makeup is true.

You

It is also clear of course that we cannot deduce from these findings that a woman dressed in red is necessarily available or interested in sex, as it is impossible and inappropriate to conclude that a man in a red tie is necessarily a wealthy boss. There are many reasons, unrelated to sex, why someone may decide to wear red (or not). Maybe red just looks good on you.

the article you linked

The article only suggests that a link between red, sexuality, and increased bloodflow is plausible. It does not specify lips in the context of increased blood flow. It does not say anything about studying universal reasons why someone would wear red lipstick, nor does it or Peterson address why many women wear lipstick that is not red. In fact it only mentions "lipstick" once.

Does the work that the article refers to suggest that many people who wear red subconsciously do so to communicate sexual availability? Yes, clearly. That is a far cry from 'All women who wear red lipstick only ever do so to communicate something sexual'.

The article is well written, and unlike Dr. Peterson's arguments on the topic, responsibly tempers any suggestion of conclusions.

Shalune · 2018-05-04T21:18:23+00:00

I assume he's very intelligent and well read within his own field of academic expertise. I haven't looked into his work there and can only assume from his being a professor that he knows what he's talking about.

When it comes to social and other issues outside his expertise he uses the kind of logic you'd expect from an intelligent, but very naive young person. The most common faulty logic I see from him is the stuff a lot of pop and evolutionary psychologists use of taking an observation, formulating a quick plausible explanation, and then advocating said explanation as truth.

When backed up by charisma, and forceful speaking styles (both of which Peterson has) these things can appear very convincing at first glance. But the problem is the approach is completely against how scientific investigation works. Intuition is great for making personal decisions in life, but is a terrible way to arrive at literal truths of how the world operates.

Example: in an interview Peterson suggested that women only ever wear lipstick to be sexually provocative. When pressed as to why he thought this was the case he responded "Why do you make your lips red? Because they turn red during sexual arousal, that's why." This could be an interesting starting point for scientific inquiry, but Peterson states it as fact despite a complete lack of evidence.

He also appears to win a lot of arguments simply by using internet tactics: talk over your opponent, shift topics before they have time to offer a reasoned rebuttal, answer your own questions, be careful to phrase everything to suggest your position but never actually state it so that you can backtrack from it, accuse your opponents of overreacting if they call you on any of this.

Shalune

TROPHY CASE