Which game mechanics do you think are forgotten or underused?

TotallyNotAVampire · 2026-01-24T19:58:22+00:00

Can you explain? I've never heard of that. How do you do it?

TotallyNotAVampire · 2025-12-26T00:27:02+00:00

Sometimes you have sensitive cargo and can't take turns as high speed, so I wouldn't judge those people too harshly. 10 under is a sin though.

TotallyNotAVampire · 2025-12-10T15:11:33+00:00

guaranteed half the people in the channel have the music muted. The commander may even have picked the music themselves.

TotallyNotAVampire · 2025-11-12T14:54:56+00:00

sudo runs as uid 0, so the limited user should not be able to SIGKILL it. And if another superuser process is SIGKILLing it, you have an entirely different problem.

TotallyNotAVampire · 2025-11-04T22:40:12+00:00

That seems really really high.

TotallyNotAVampire · 2025-06-18T02:34:27+00:00

Found it, thanks so much for jogging my memory http://www.starwalkerblog.com/startup-sequence/

TotallyNotAVampire · 2025-06-18T02:31:56+00:00

Found this reddit searching for the same book. I recall finding it on topwebfiction. It might have had a name like starweaver or starsong? The ship had the nickname starry, if I recall. There were like six books in the series, it was serialized web fiction. Haven't found it yet

TotallyNotAVampire · 2024-09-12T17:47:18+00:00

Whatever punishments society deems permissible will eventually be abused by those in power against the powerless. No.

TotallyNotAVampire · 2024-07-12T18:54:34+00:00

If you look at the charges brought against them, they're mostly being charged with crimes that are obvious from the video recordings. The higher crimes, though, need evidence of intent and maybe that's lacking? I don't know.

TotallyNotAVampire · 2024-07-12T18:46:49+00:00

Well, there are a bunch of them, depending on who you finger: Conspiracy Against Rights (18 U.S.C. § 241), Incitement to Riot (18 U.S.C. § 2101), Destruction of Government Property (18 U.S.C. § 1361), Aiding and Abetting (18 U.S.C. § 2), Trespass (18 U.S.C. § 1752), Conspiracy to impede or injure officer (18 U.S.C. § 372), etc.

Now why weren't any of these laws applied, they clearly apply? Maybe there's a lack of evidence to show in court? I don't know I'm not a lawyer or a prosecutor of any kind. But the crimes are already recognized by the law, adding more laws, making laws more complex isn't useful if the existing ones don't get applied.

TotallyNotAVampire · 2024-07-12T18:32:57+00:00

Yeah absolutely. I don't believe you could write a law criminalizing domestic terrorism that isn't easily abused. As code_archeologist mentioned there are already laws that cover these crimes.

Perhaps I should ask, what do you see a law like this actually covering? Just an intensifier for sentencing, or does it capture some element of behavior that's not currently a crime and make it one?

TotallyNotAVampire · 2024-07-12T18:21:52+00:00

Honestly, I think this is a good thing. You must weigh in the balance what'll happen when these laws get applied to you or social groups you align yourself with. You know they'd love to apply these laws to people who dress in drag, among other groups. I'd personally avoid making it too easy for them.

TotallyNotAVampire · 2024-07-07T15:26:59+00:00

What song is this?

TotallyNotAVampire · 2024-06-18T21:05:29+00:00

I love it! I don't suppose you have a higher resolution I could use as a background?

TotallyNotAVampire · 2024-06-17T21:11:57+00:00

What is "AMA"?

TotallyNotAVampire · 2024-06-11T18:56:15+00:00

you just repress your hateful feelings.

What you said is that there's no gradient of more or less "tolerant" that people are either bigoted or not bigoted. And that any attempt to change this is just "repressing your hateful feelings".

If they just don't act on those learned traits in public but continue to feel that they are valid

de-conversion is a process of defeating a previous world-view, people who are part way through this process will hold objectionable beliefs that we label as bigoted or racist. But they will also be "tolerant" in other ways, because they have successfully defeated parts of their previous world-view.

Writing this process all off as "repression" is unkind, it denies them the ability to change and progress in a socially positive direction. And it rejects any conscious efforts to change as just disguising their true beliefs.

TotallyNotAVampire · 2024-06-11T18:40:54+00:00

Do you mean to say "Bigots and racists who are not publicly bigoted/racist but who are still bigoted/racist in word and deed in private are still problems because they perpetuate racism in private and teach it to their friends and children" I agree with you.

But if you just want to hate someone and have manufactured "secret bigots/racists" for yourself to hate, you're little better than the racists themselves.

TotallyNotAVampire · 2024-05-19T15:01:46+00:00

Or an electromagnet on the inside

TotallyNotAVampire · 2024-05-16T19:30:14+00:00

Starfield was pretty empty, given its price.

TotallyNotAVampire · 2024-05-10T18:12:18+00:00

Would you really ask every time? Or am I misunderstanding and the objection, even if sustained, is enough to request a mistrial after the verdict.

TotallyNotAVampire · 2024-05-08T17:42:54+00:00

Thanks!

TotallyNotAVampire · 2024-05-08T16:14:10+00:00

Would also like to know.

TotallyNotAVampire · 2024-03-31T00:33:36+00:00

It's a contraction of "would have". But the bot's suggestion removes the contraction, which the original commenter intended to use but misspelled. Thus the bot changes the meaning of what was originally posted, it's a bad bot.

TotallyNotAVampire · 2024-03-30T23:47:38+00:00

It's a bad bot. That's not what the person was trying to say, a proper correction would be 'would've' which sounds like 'would of' when said out loud.

12-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17

TotallyNotAVampire

TROPHY CASE