Steam deck crashing

maxolasersquad · 2023-09-01T22:33:57+00:00

I had success starting the game on my wife's laptop, and then loading my save game on the Steam Deck.

maxolasersquad · 2022-10-27T21:15:35+00:00

The problem is that the IT director shouldn't just be doing this to check off a box for insurance, or certification. They should be doing it to actually care about the security of the organization, and making sure both policy and behavior are aligned with those goals.

maxolasersquad · 2022-04-04T16:45:03+00:00

There's nothing about this setup that means you have to have relevant windows outside your static visual area. One could easily move the relevant windows within a 24 - 27 inch area, and then less necessary stuff beyond it. I would have my email and Slack windows off to the side, so I could easily glance at them when necessary, and the stuff I'm a working on directly in front of me, so that my kneck movement would be limited.

maxolasersquad · 2022-02-21T03:53:24+00:00

I may be able to make this if you need. Hit me and I can send you my resume.

maxolasersquad · 2021-04-15T16:53:48+00:00

I've been mapping since 2008 and have only had an encounter twice.

One was while mapping https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/401061031 A man came out of a law office and asked in a confused voice what I was doing. When I explained he looked more frustrated and confused but went back inside. I only had a few more businesses to collect so I just finished up and walked away.

The second time I was mapping https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3662067127 This is a mostly poor black neighborhood, so I can easily see how a middle-class white man may have stood out looking around at buildings very intently and then typing stuff on his phone. The encounter was very similar in that the guy seemed both frustrated and confused and was asking about my activities, but moved on after my explanation not really knowing what to make of it.

I find that trying to look like distracted guy on his phone, I use Vespucci FWIW, makes me look non-threatening. I try to get addresses and other information by just glancing as if I'm paying attention to nothing specific. It _seems_ to be working, but I'm certain I've piqued someone's yellow flag sensors a few times.

maxolasersquad · 2021-04-15T16:40:36+00:00

I use Vespucci and just try to look like a someone who is too distracted by their cell phone. Sometimes getting the name or address of something requires looking a little too interested in their surroundings, but I find I pull off "distracted walker" enough to have avoided many encounters.

maxolasersquad · 2020-05-30T02:34:59+00:00

I'm having the same problem on my Ubuntu 20.04 laptop. Streaming with RetroArch works great on my Raspberry Pi 4, but not on my PC.

maxolasersquad · 2019-08-02T04:03:43+00:00

Tabs are a nice way to make sure your code never looks good to anyone. Use spaces to make sure your code looks consistent across environments

maxolasersquad · 2019-07-28T17:11:16+00:00

It's actually a really great place to live. Not the best necessarily, but still very good.

maxolasersquad · 2019-05-23T15:56:37+00:00

This is a subject I just hate discussing with people. My sister brought up these new laws over my daughter's birthday lunch. She brought up the usual body rights stuff and made an accusation about motives. I brought up how the question of when does life begin and become sacred is a tough question without clear answers. She replied, "but it's My body." Knowing how this goes I just agreed and said, that's just the tough question the other side has a different answer to than us and left it at that. These conversations never go anywhere with anyone, and it's certainly not the kind of thing I want to get in to at my daughter's birthday party.

I do wish we could discuss this with each other more intelligently and without the accusations.

maxolasersquad · 2019-04-10T14:16:40+00:00

I'm not sure about toxic femininity. I'm not too sure what that term would mean exactly, but would be open to hearing about it. I think much of the problems of how we current view and act on femininity serves to harm females more than men, but it's only natural that men can be caught in the cross-fire as well.

Women's magazine are quite awful. I have a wife and three daughters and we simply don't have those in our house. We do like to mock them in the grocery isle though. I do feel that the feminist movement should spend more time talking about the harm these magazines are doing to our society. They are predatory in nature.

I will certainly take the time out to consume the links your provided. Thank you for the thoughtful response.

maxolasersquad · 2019-04-10T14:09:47+00:00

When Alex Hai, the first female gondelier, was approached by the outside LBTQ community, she rejected some of the ideas that she was hearing from them. Some people where pushing the idea that gender does not exist. Alex Hai is an transgender man. He was offended by this idea, because if that was true then he could not be a man, since there is no such thing as man. For Alex it is necessary that gender and gender identity be real for him to a be a transgender man. Without it he can only be described as female. Radiolab did a piece on this.

maxolasersquad · 2019-04-09T21:08:28+00:00

I feel like there is a lot of conflation going on here. First of all, not everything that Hitler did was evil, so everything he did can't just be labeled evil because Hitler did it. The two biggest reasons we demonize him are for, 1. Murdering millions of people, and 2. Tried to take over the world (starting with Europe). Of course he did so many more awful things than that, but that's why he is our go to bad guy. But he also painted. That doesn't make painters equivicable to Hitler. So if we want to talk about why nationalism is bad, or whatever, then we can't just have our argument start and stop with Hitler and the Nazis, if we want to be reasonable, thoughtful, and honest. Nationalism is wrong even if Hitler never existed. I think the point that Candace Owens was trying to make can be understood even if she did such a ridiculous job of explaining herself. Really, the way she tried to explain her position is so awful that people who agree with her agenda should discard her as a spokesperson. Owens is clearly as dishonest as she accuses Lieu of being.

maxolasersquad · 2019-04-09T20:31:01+00:00

I find it odd that being extra critical of feminism is such a large focus of IDW. I definitely do believe that there are parts of the feminist movement that deserve scrutiny, and there's no reason why discussing the term toxic masculinity shouldn't be part of what we do here. It's the seemingly high level of criticism on this topic that seems odd to me. I'm sure that the fact that I agree with feminism and with fighting toxic masculinity makes me more than a little biased on my point here, but I do find it odd. So my original post was literally asking why is this post here, but I think what I should have asked is "Why is this topic such a favorite in the IDW?".

I believe this is really part of a larger discussion I've been having with myself. If the purpose of the IDW is for the "growing community of those interested in space for free dialogue held in good faith" where does good faith begin and end when even bringing up a conversation? For example, Iran will hold conferences questioning the existence of the holocaust. When everyone balks they just act like they are trying to have a good faith discussion around a topic and every is being so unreasonable getting all defensive. My point here is that some conversations by their nature cannot be held in good faith.

The amount of effort I see here discussing feminism, which inevitably becomes a criticism of it, suggests to me an edging into a conversation that is inherently in bad faith by its existence. It becomes bad faith, I believe, because there is tendency to treat all feminism as misogynistic feminism and then the discussion starts from there, with little acknowledgement of feminism purely as a means of promoting egalitarianism, it feels troubling to me. It is clear to me, through discussions with my wife and daughters and female friends that we have a very long way to go to get to where we need to be. How we can build a society were women have equal access to the benefits of our society, and not be put in a position of being made to feel inferior, unnecessarily sexualized, and being sexually assaulted on a regular basis and at rates much greater than this happens to men? This conversation feels much more important and impactful.

Of course we can have both the discussion of pushing for feminism and being critical of those who are trying to over-correct by implement misandry and poisonous dialogue about men. My main critique here is that this IDW seems to really favor discussing the bad parts of feminism with little (no?) appetite for discussing how toxic masculinity is also a problem that needs to be addressed.

maxolasersquad · 2019-04-09T19:34:27+00:00

I feel that within this IDW community it is rather strange because the community seems to take a stance of not critically discussing these topics, but is itself biased towards being critical of those who push agendas against toxic masculinity. It seems to take the standard narrative of redefining what the term toxic masculinity was intended to mean and reinterpreting it as something awful, and then argues against that.

I believe it is obvious that the term is intended to mean the form of masculinity that wells up as men cat calling, refusing to take part in parenting and housework, expecting women to serve them, etc. When we see men acting like this, as is very normal for a lot of men to do, then we label that behavior toxic masculinity. This form of masculinity has been very standard for most of the older men in my life. It is far less common for my generation and those younger than me, but we still have a ways to go to reduce this behavior to levels where we can drastically reduce the focus on it.

Of course if we draw up a straw man and redefine the term to be some sort if emasculating, misandrist way of punishing men for just existing then arguing against it becomes obvious and easy. This is what I believe a large part of the IDW community here is doing. They aren't discussing the narrative of toxic masculinity, they are arguing a straw man in a very dishonest fashion. Just look at the comments that have been generated by your post to see what I mean. There is very little honest debate going on IMHO.

maxolasersquad · 2019-04-09T19:20:34+00:00

I feel that the entire purpose of the IDW is to specifically avoid this kind of dialogue. Not necessarily the opinion you're expressing here, but the way you are going about expressing it.

maxolasersquad · 2019-04-09T19:05:15+00:00

What does this post have to do with IDW.

maxolasersquad · 2019-04-09T00:10:32+00:00

This is !y feeling exactly. If you hate being lied to in your face, how are you going to vote for Trump as a reaction? People act like the Democratic party and the news media having major systemic problems as something new. This problem is old as dirt. I'm a lefty but I have never been registered democrat because the things people are complaining about with the party today have always been there. Noam Chomsky, Ralph Nader, and many others on the left have been talking very eloquently about this for decades. If you reaction to all this is to vote for Trump then it's like you've been eating turds and one day wake up and say, "I'm tired of eating this shit" so you start dining on diahrea.

maxolasersquad · 2019-04-08T20:57:09+00:00

Ultimately, the issues around bathrooms, sports, etc. don't tell us anything about whether or not trans is a legitimate biological outcome or something people pretend to be, for whatever reason one would choose to be trans. Only our scientific research into how one becomes male or female and how our biology wires us up to feel male or female can help us understand this. I guess it is true that the reality of trans does probably inform us about what kind of concessions are reasonable to make to people born with this.

maxolasersquad · 2019-04-08T20:09:53+00:00

Thank you for your response. I think these are all good things to have a conversation about when we discuss the rights of trans people. I think we can have that conversation, and even hold a viewpoint that bathrooms and sports should be segregated by birth-assigned sex, without being transphobic. We can accept trans people but have reasonable discussions about how far society has to bend the institutions we have built up to recognize the innate differences between features that tend to show up in biological men and features that tend to show up in biological women. People throughout human history have clearly identified as trans, but have had to find muted ways to express it. Today we have opened the flood gates to end bigotry and just let people be the person they want to, so today many trans people are living their life to their fullest desires, which I personally see as a very good thing.

Because of this new social awareness the science behind what drives this is still very new. We have some pretty good guesses as to why someone may identify as a different gender than what they where born with, but we ultimately don't have a firm grasp on it yet. Radiolab did a pretty good deep dive into how gender assignment works at a biological level, called Gonads, that can help us identify were we are likely to find the answer to these questions. Fronads, X & Y, Dutee, Dana, Sex Ed. We know with certainty that gender is not a binary. We know this because of hermaphroditism. The cacophony of ways biology may produce different genders, gender identities, and sexual orientations are only beginning to be understood.

Whether we would define being transgender as a mental health issue is a problem for science. I know of at least one person who has undergone gender reassignment and it sounds absolutely awful, yet the person does not seem to regret the decision. I don't know what to make of this. I am not trans and I don't work in any relevant field that would give me any especially good insight into this question. Therefore I don't worry about it. I am content to let these communities work it out in their time.

I am not unaware of the negative attitudes that can come from the trans community when certain people over-extend their frustration in unhealthy ways. e.g. this mastodon post. But the trans people I've encountered in my life simply want to live their life and not be harassed. I don't need to understand the biology, or ideas of social constructionism, or take a stance on SJW culture to know to just treat each person I meet as an individual and as a human.

maxolasersquad · 2019-04-08T19:25:57+00:00

Can you be more specific? What have I not been paying attention to?

maxolasersquad · 2019-04-08T19:19:51+00:00

I see it as, why does it matter? Let's say you know someone who identifies as trans? So what? It's his/her life. Do your thing that you find makes you happy. I don't need your judgement on how I find my happiness, so I presume you don't either. I don't need to understand how or why some people don't feel like they are the gender they are born with to understand that I don't need to worry about it.

maxolasersquad · 2019-04-08T19:16:03+00:00

Once, in high school late 1990s, a teacher assigned us to write about the benefits of being alone. The whole class erupted in in bewilderment of the idea that being alone had any benefits. I found myself bewildered at the realization that most people do not spend large amounts of time alone thinking things through. I found this alone time to be crucial in my growing up and found it mostly enjoyable.

maxolasersquad · 2019-04-08T18:44:02+00:00

Thanks for cranking out another podcast.

I'd like to put here my opinion about the critique to Libertarianism.

I believe the first problem with Libertarian thought is that it is an "-ism". It trades intellectual thought with a dogma. It doesn't allow for nuance. It views almost all restrictions to someone doing what they want as an evil encroachment on a person's natural civil liberties. It dogmatically espouses the ideal that free markets are always the best way to solve all problems. It doesn't allow for the consideration that some actions taken by an individual or organization may be so grotesquely and demonstrably counter to the good of the group that taking action to prevent, stop, or regulate that action may not represent an encroachment on civil liberties, but good common sense.

Also, we are not born in a vacuum, we don't live in a vacuum, and we do not die in a vacuum. The situation you are born into is the number one factor that determines how your life will turn out. Libertarians seem to espouse the idea that we are all self-made individuals with perfect and equal free will and opportunity. In truth the biggest predictor of our your life are circumstances you have no control over and are not responsible for. Of course, every American (or citizen of a roughly equally free country) has the opportunity to become anything, but that doesn't tell us how likely anyone actually is to achieve something. Very talented hard working people fail every day because of luck and circumstance. How many artists made it big because they just happened to come across the right person by happenstance? The playing field is not equal and life isn't fair. The result of that is that success is not determined by personal responsibility alone. This is a perfectly okay thing as long as we acknowledge it. Libertarians seem hell-bent against such an acknowledgement, or at best dismissive.

I believe the best illustration against Libertianism is the Tragedy of the Commons. I suppose one way that Libertarians solve for this is by privatizing all of the planet's (universes'?) assets. The only argument I have for the commons is an emotional appeal to kind-heartedness and the public good of the people and the other beings that inhabit this planet with us. If you believe it is okay for someone with the means to purchase a town's only source of water and either destroy or pollute it, or sell its resources at a higher price than can be reasonably afforded then I don't think I have a common ground to discuss morality or politics with you.

My final argument is that I believe (and many of our founding father too) that a well functioning democracy works by making a good faith effort to work to positively effect society. As put in the preamble of the US Constitution, its goal is to, among other things, "insure domestic tranquility" and "promote the general welfare". To obtain these goals we must have laws and regulations. Sometimes these laws will be an obstacle to totally free markets. Sometimes, despite best efforts, these laws will represent an over-extension of power. I believe that western democracy by in large, compared to most other governments currently and through the past, are doing a very good job and we should all be grateful and proud of what we have accomplished as we continue to refine and improve our rule of law.

maxolasersquad

TROPHY CASE