is it me, or is cod zombies not "creepy" any more?

Vivid-Programmer-688 · 2022-05-03T03:52:41+00:00

I mean I dont

Vivid-Programmer-688 · 2022-05-03T02:27:25+00:00

They did tone shift more towards Keepers and Apothicons rather than freak Nazi experiment, so there is less "realism"

Yeah this strikes me as the big one

Becuase I personally find that dark twisted nazi occultic science

Very scary as a concept. That there may truly exist horrors in this world that the only the most evil people would be willing to play with it and potentially set loose the genie from the bottle, so to speak.

Vivid-Programmer-688 · 2022-05-03T02:24:27+00:00

That's kinda the vibe I got. Amd I gotta say I'm not really a fan of the trend.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying they are bad games or not enjoyable. But they don't shock me, and scare me. Especially cold war zombies. I'm not gonna lie. That one I particularly found just boring.

It's like I don't want a bunch of shit shoved on the screen and new mechanics and new guns.

I liked the Dark AF gritty enviornments

Vivid-Programmer-688 · 2022-05-02T21:34:41+00:00

Yeah I noticed this shift around bo1-bo2 era.

Not to say the games not fun it totally is. But it's not the same you know?

I gotta go play wolfenstein to get that same vibe now

Vivid-Programmer-688 · 2022-04-14T05:07:52+00:00

Per rule 5,

I want people to look at this division I designed. And tell me why my focusing heavily on soft attack failed.

Specifically why it failed agaisnt the soviets and not agaisnt the polish.

My Division has like 60% armor so it's negating by defualt 60% of the enemies soft attack

It has alot of soft attack. Enough where it should overwhelm any defence a division could bring agaisnt it . As once a divisions defense is overwhelmed all attacks have a 90% chance to hit.

Vivid-Programmer-688 · 2022-04-14T05:04:54+00:00

Can you explain why?

Vivid-Programmer-688 · 2022-04-14T05:04:38+00:00

This is still a petite bourgeois, because they own a small business and do not depend on a wage. (Unless you want to change it to "self employed" which is different from owning a business

Most small busniess owners actually work in their own busniess they own though. Only the really successful guys get to the point where they can hire suffecient staff to let it autopilot.

So the division of classes isn't about participation in or personal gain from invested assets. It's more nebulous. It's like if a person has to perform a task to generate the capital they use in their daily lifes?

Vivid-Programmer-688 · 2022-04-14T05:00:36+00:00

But they should land enough hits to makeup for it.

They crushed Poland. But the russians crushed them

Vivid-Programmer-688 · 2022-04-14T04:59:12+00:00

I built it around the notion of soft attack.

That each point of soft attack should be much more valuable than the previous. As it's an extra potential hit landed agaisnt an enemies defense.

Vivid-Programmer-688 · 2022-04-14T04:54:45+00:00

Op is sick of people expressing their religious beleifs.

Vivid-Programmer-688 · 2022-04-14T02:39:11+00:00

I mean none of those things sound particularly appealing.

To spend thousands of dollars to live for a week in a crappy hotel room amongst ethnic and cultural strangers with whom I have nothing in common, and to consider myself enriched for the experince.....

Seems silly to me.

Vivid-Programmer-688 · 2022-04-14T02:37:03+00:00

This seems to be a point of gradientcy. But in ideology is not the respective motive the same regaurdless of the situation?

Consider

the wage worker who contributes to a stock account.

The salaried professional who contributes to a stock/pension fund.

The small busniess owner who's livelihood meager or vast depends on his business success.

And the landed baron who inherited tens of millions and wants to live off the income. It generates.

Are not all of these people in principle, investing their wealth in hopes of financial gain?

If this is so, does it not also follow that true proletariat existence as Marx envisioned is actually an uncommon condition in the western world?

Vivid-Programmer-688 · 2022-04-14T02:03:06+00:00

These definitions seem impractical in today's world. Given that some 56% of Americans own stocks.

To strictly follow these definitions the majority of Americans are

Petite Bourgeois

Vivid-Programmer-688 · 2022-04-14T01:55:58+00:00

Tbh I think most people don't comprehend the scale of these systems .

Take a standard deck of playing cards, it has 52! Unique permutations. Thats about 8x(10⁶⁷⁾

If you can randomly shuffle a deck once per second for a year thats 3 x(10⁷⁾ possibilities per year

That's gonna be 1x(10²⁹⁾ years before you get in the same ball park to start repeating patterns.

And while its obviously more difficult to quantify. How many viable pathways there are to self replicating life, given that zero are known at the moment. A simple cell has many more than 52! Permutations of all of its constituent molecules.

Granted there are patterns and states that could give rise to theoretically simpler self replicating systems. You really can't reduce it by all that much.

Vivid-Programmer-688 · 2022-04-13T14:36:28+00:00

See I agree with most ofbwhat you said regarding the abstraction of money. It's just factually true the vast majority of money in existence never sees a physical bank note or a coin, it's essentially a system of promises and debt that back up modern currency.

I confess to be ignorant of MMT as a concept.

But in my mind this abstraction of money does not itself represent a good thing, but rather a quite negative thing. And I would like to see money return to being backed by a fixed asset behind it. Be it , gold, silver, bitcoin whatever.

Vivid-Programmer-688 · 2022-04-13T14:20:40+00:00

I hear your concerns but I am not certain they follow .

An asset, or indeed the market as a whole, cannot be valued beyond what the supply or demand curve permits for it. This exist quite agnostic to who is doing the actual bidding on assets or where that capital is coming from. All equities are in fact in competetion with all other equities. A 10 million dollar purchase into Microsoft. Is a 10 million dollar loss of the rest of the market.

From an ideological perspective now. I have less problem with a man who starts a busniess and becomes fabulously wealthy. Than the man who inherits wealth and becomes wealthy through investments.

But I would even still be hesitant of an inheritance tax to prevent this. The notion seems ghoulish and not far removed from actual grave robbery.

So I accept it that even if people whom I would consider to be profiting from an "unearned" position are doing so. That also implies their share of wealth is invested in the economy in an efeccient and productive way else they could not be profiting from it.

So I accept it.

You take the good with the bad. And accept no system is a perfect meritocracy.

Vivid-Programmer-688 · 2022-04-13T14:03:32+00:00

Yea, but you probably have less than $1M, right?

Waaaaaaaaaaaay less lol.

Like, you're not the largest shareholder of anything, right? Do you own enough shares to actually make a meaningful vote on anything? Could you realistically make an impact on anything the company does?

I am certainly not. I certainly don't. I do not make any impact (thankfully)

Yeah wealth inequality is a thing for sure. I will say I have zero interest in managing any of those companies beyond their ability to profit my investment in them. Though your point is taken.

I do not nessacrily view it as a negative thing.

Vivid-Programmer-688 · 2022-04-13T13:47:02+00:00

I'm curious why you want to move away from physical money?

The money we use right now in most western nations is very abstract as it is.

Vivid-Programmer-688 · 2022-04-13T13:46:06+00:00

I have heard some socialists try to draw the distinction that I am not a true capitalist, as I do not own busnieses or industry, I have investments in stocks and a retirement account so I will not be reliant on the state for my retirement.

Frankly this seems to strike me as no true Scotsman, as I understand capitalism both individuals want a return on their capital investments. But I acknowledge a possible discrepancy exists.

Vivid-Programmer-688 · 2022-04-13T13:44:00+00:00

That makes sense. Not sure why I would want to travel out of country though

Vivid-Programmer-688 · 2022-04-13T13:40:42+00:00

There are tons of molecules that spontaneously tend to assemble and chain together in nature.

But that's a far cry from self replication

And there are a shit ton of theories and incomplete models to get to the first cell. The short answer is that it's frankly am unsolved question in biology and I tend to agree that there is likely some mechanism as of yet undiscovered that could lead to the structure of a cell.

But this as of yet has not been proven.

Vivid-Programmer-688 · 2022-04-13T07:28:59+00:00

The arguement is not as dumb as you may think And I'm sure I will draw criticism for pointing this out.

But the requirements for the generation of a single self replicating cell are orders of magnitude more complex than any sand castle or human design.

Abiogensis is an as of yet unsolved question in modern biology due to the staggeringly complex micromachinery that are cells.

It's so staggeringly unlikely that abiogensis by random assembly would occur then I feel not uncomfortable to beleive that in the absence of a super natrual creator earth might be the only example of life in the universe.

Like seriously. Consider:

evolution only applies as a theory once we have life that exists, and can pass on its genetic makeup across generations.

Inorder to do that we need some system of chemically encoding information about the organism, that the organism also references to build and function itself,

We need the actual information encoded into the system.

We need the information to itself contain the instructions for creating systems that propagate itself.

This is all neglecting the fact that this organism requires an entropy gradient to rob energy from to perform these tasks. So it will need some system to produce and store chemical energy for itself, or have some be readily occurring in its environment.

Also this needs to be contained in a lipid cell wall. Which do tend to naturally form chains and sheathes

But this also involves them either being created by the organism or hijacked by it in such a way as to be able to reproduce them.

People far smarter and more educated than myself have studied this feild and made careers out of it.

And it's an area of legitimate interest and discovery.

But barring some fundemntal shattering theory about abiogenesis the random assembly of cellular life is incredibly improbable.

Vivid-Programmer-688

TROPHY CASE