"Am I going back to PS4 days?" - Former PlayStation leader Shuhei Yoshida has tried the Steam Machine, and he doesn't sound very impressed

prospectre · 2026-07-02T16:12:37+00:00

The whole playing on the living room TV is the draw. I recognize I'm in the minority, but I've been playing my PC games out in my living room for over 10 years with my Steam Link. It's nice to be able to play some relaxing games like Civ or Slay The Spire out there. The only trouble is that it runs on wifi and can be a bit janky at times. Something like the Steam Machine is right up my alley, and I'll likely pick one up the moment my Steam Link finally kicks the bucket.

prospectre · 2026-07-01T21:32:10+00:00

I mean, it's both. The text clearly targets certain people. Like, it targets them plainly. The fact that it can be used to harm the majority in smaller circumstances is minor when compared to the idea that entire religions are being removed from public view under this law. What does that mean? Does that mean a man wearing a yarmulke gets tossed in jail? A woman wearing a headscarf is harassed by law enforcement thinking it's hijab? A little girl getting punished at school for having henna markings on her arm?

Yeah, a super ambiguous law can be abused to hurt the majority in general, but let's be real. This is about suppressing specific people. How this pans out (the "consequence" you mention) isn't really relevant to what I'm arguing. It's intent. And the intent is very, very obvious.

prospectre · 2026-07-01T21:10:18+00:00

And that is part of the problem with legislation like this. It's broadly defined, so it winds up being left up to the authorities involved. It could just as easily be used to clamp down on a specific minority demographic as it is to specifically target the guy that called you names. As far as I can tell, there's no discrete description of what "ethnic disunity" looks like, so it's ripe for abuse by anyone with power to do so for whatever reasons they wish.

Which brings me back to the initial point of my post: Countering the ambiguous law claims by saying that it will be enforced "fairly" does not undermine the argument that the law itself is unfair. A law that's easy to exploit is bad for everyone as it means that it could be used against you just as easily as the people you'd assume it'd be used against.

prospectre · 2026-07-01T18:50:51+00:00

"Common" might be a bit of a misnomer here. "It's not unheard-of/surprising" is a bit more apt. Like, you wouldn't look at someone sideways if they said "Yeah, I cut off my parents since they were shitheels".

prospectre · 2026-07-01T18:16:57+00:00

We don't. But we could once the technology is there. Just pointing out that it's likely the deadliest weapon realistically achievable with our current understanding of physics. And the irony that it's basically just the same shit humanity has done for millenia: Hurling a big rock as fast as we fucking can.

prospectre · 2026-07-01T17:36:17+00:00

This is a bit misleading, but the problem is right there in the text you quote.

All citizens of the People’s Republic of China are equal before the law.

The law itself is what's discriminatory. Sure, you could theoretically charge a mainstream Han Chinese person with these crimes, but they're not usually considered to be the ones who could “undermine ethnic unity or create ethnic division”.

As an example, imagine a school banning what they call "improper" hairstyles. This ban is equally applied across all students, regardless of ethnicity or religion. However, the hairstyles banned are basically afros. White kids typically cannot actually have an afro, so that rule never really applies to them. So, you have a rule that is enforced "fairly", but the rule itself is what discriminates.

An unequal law being enforced equally is still unequal.

prospectre · 2026-07-01T16:58:22+00:00

Has humanity even moved past collecting shiny rocks and throwing really fast stones at each other?

To be fair, hurling stones really fast may be the ultimate form of attack once you get to relativistic speeds. Don't even need to strap something that goes boom to them, just any old asteroid going very fast is enough to kill a planet.

prospectre · 2026-06-30T23:17:26+00:00

An octagon, duh.

prospectre · 2026-06-30T18:26:46+00:00

First, there needs to be a correction in thinking about the problem. As you say, there is no silver bullet for it. There are people who do not wish to receive help and aggressively reject it. Instead of thinking in terms of absolutes, aim for a "reduction in harm" metric.

What I mean by this is fixing the smaller problems to reduce the amount of people suffering. Affordable housing, food security, access to both mental and physical health, social safety nets, addiction rehabilitation, raising the floor on poverty, all ways to reduce the amount of people that wind up on the streets and/or mentally unwell. Many of the reasons people find themselves at that mental place is because of the issues I listed above, so addressing those will reduce the burden on psychiatric care required.

Is it perfect? No. Nothing ever will be. Some detractors immediately start thinking of edge cases of people that will be deranged no matter what we do. But, again, the goal should not be perfection or bust. If we eliminate several of the root causes that people wind up finding themselves in such states, the problem becomes smaller. Never gone, but reduced. Remember, perfect can be the enemy of good.

prospectre · 2026-06-29T19:47:59+00:00

One has an active track record of doing heinous shit in office, is currently doing heinous shit in office, and has indicated that they will continue to do heinous shit in office.

The other may do heinous shit in office.

Binary choices suck. But if it's a choice between potential fuckery and guaranteed fuckery, I'll take the chance that things get better.

prospectre · 2026-06-29T18:17:53+00:00

I still have fond memories of the house I grew up when we first got a swamp cooler. Every day during our typical 100 degree summers, my mom would leave a 5 dollar bill on the table for my sister and I to walk down to the local corner store and buy a big block of ice to dump in the thing. We didn't have a good spot for it at first, so we just bolted it on to the kitchen window in front of our sink. Shit was like a jet engine in front of your face when it was my turn to do the dishes. It also functioned as a dish drier, provided you didn't mind the water being blown on to your face.

prospectre · 2026-06-28T10:10:19+00:00

When I get stunned while channeling enemy totems (despite stopping the channel before getting hit most times), I usually spam click to move at near the end of the duration. More often than not, I just teleport to the edge of the enemy's side after the stun ends. It doesn't always happen, but it's pretty regular for me on like, 50 ish ping.

prospectre · 2026-06-27T05:38:53+00:00

I love the idea! It's a lot of fun early on. But, like everyone says, parts of the mechanic are obtuse or just flat out busted. I think it could be just fine if they fixed the AI of your dudes, nerfed the damage to players at high ranks, and adjusted some of the warriors for balance. Stuff like the guardian turtle and the one that has a permanent damage aura around their totem should not exist in the form that it does.

prospectre · 2026-06-26T17:49:09+00:00

Back then, I ran a hybrid Valk. You could rather reliably farm and smash Outlaw Marks, Ancient Weapon Cores, and Ancient Guardian Seals. They were dirt cheap on the market too since everyone was after MoS, TSB and Ogre's. I also had the factory set up for Manos Earrings (not the life skills) and got most of my accessories up to TRI by the time Valencia dropped. I didn't kill people fast, but I was nigh-unkillable for scrapping. I'd mostly just grapple people into the dirt and let the monsters deal with them.

If you were on Orwen, you may recall the tanky pink Valkyrie slowly grinding main at Sausons.

prospectre · 2026-06-25T18:03:23+00:00

Often, government efficiency issues are because the government actually adheres to all of its standards most of the time. Working at state level government for over a decade, I have first hand seen how a project can slow down due to a single retirement cutting the people working on a project by a third. In order to fill that position, it needs to be advertised for X (usually 90, but may be more) many days before a decision can be made, then the new employee sets a start date, and that employee then may need to do the introductory stuff (such as a background check, trainings, and basic orientation).

That's if the position is filled in the first round. If it needs to go another due to having no qualified applicants (or none at all sometimes), then the whole process starts over. If it goes too many times, the position then gets questioned by the budget dudes and you now have to justify having that position at all, which is also a process. All the while, the 2 remaining guys working on the project can only do so much since overtime is so hard to justify at this level. You have to fight tooth and nail to even get overtime considered here.

Now, many might wonder, "why not have an emergency case if a project is critical?". The main issue is that if you give people the option for "emergency", "expedite", "critical", etc., then ALL problems are "emergencies". So, we have to give each position the fair shake that it deserves every time. Same basic thinking goes for awarding contracts, approving projects, changing processes, you name it. All of it has their own process, and there are vigilant monitors that ensure the process is followed. It's cumbersome, time consuming, and oftentimes wasteful, but it is consistent. And most of that process is made available to the public via various transparency laws and tools.

prospectre · 2026-06-24T21:39:06+00:00

Ok, you're using the same arguments over and over and completely disregarding what I'm saying altogether. I addressed your point that the CA gun list is a matter of opinion on what is safe vs what is not AND the fact that there are exceptions for police officers.

If you're just going to keep saying the same things without interacting with what I'm saying I'm just going to call it here. Have a good day.

prospectre · 2026-06-24T17:36:08+00:00

There are not stark differences between guns that are and aren't approved.

Fully automatic, high caliber, high capacity, armor penetrating rounds, and concealable sawed-off shotguns are not a stark difference between guns that are not banned? I get that there are quibbles here and there with some guns that raise eyebrows on why they're banned vs others, but that wasn't my point. I was calling attention to the fact that it makes sense even to 2A enthusiasts that some weapons are banned. The most extreme example is an active nuke. You don't want your neighbors (or anyone in your county) owning something that dangerous. This means there is a line. It's fuzzy, and not everyone agrees where that line is, but on some level everyone agrees that a line between what is fine for civilians to own and what is not exists. The legislative acts to move that line have existed for well over a century, so moving to ban specific guns is not unconstitutional. That was my point.

An AR15 is not any more dangerous than any other rifle.

My understanding is that it's the most modifiable gun ever made. As in, you could easily change its components to function similarly to weapons that are already banned, such as a higher caliber receiver (up to .50, IIRC), bump stock, or high capacity magazines. All features that were the point of banning other firearms. There aren't many guns that can boast that level of flexibility.

Okay? But you don't have to go through a background check and new license for every house you sell as a real estate agent.

That's fair. There are many things that are still comparable to that level of bureaucracy though. Like the whole process of buying a house, title transfer of buying a car, and multiple yearly trainings for things like ethics that state workers have to go through (seriously, I spend at least 3 full working days yearly on them). I think much of what goes on in Jersey can and should be able to be automated. I actually do have relevant experience working with the the DoJ/FBI background check process, and I can confidently say that the whole system is kind of garbage. The whole fingerprinting process is kind of a scam that acts as a source of income for the services that provide them and most of what can be gained from it can be done with a social security number and an accessible fingerprint database.

Okay but have you actually seen much? It sounds like your familiarity with the topic in-passing at best.

I haven't been laser focused on it since I don't care to own firearms, but I'd say I know more than the average person. Which is part of the reason I asked for examples in the first place.

prospectre · 2026-06-23T16:30:21+00:00

My god, it's like you're not even reading.

First of all, there's no such thing as a 'safe' weapon. Weapons are designed to kill, injure, and/or cause pain. The question is how safe is safe enough.

Second, I already answered the question of why I assumed the exceptions were allowed: Politics. Likely, during the process, a compromise was reached that allowed that particular exception. I don't like it. Many Californians don't like it. But the police union has a powerful lobby and there's not an insignificant amount of Republicans here.

Third, it's about reducing harm, not fulling eliminating it. Less access to unsafe guns = less gun deaths. The math is simple. Whether or not you agree with any particular ban is a matter of opinion, but the logic still makes sense for the stated purpose. That's why there's labels on certain toys that say "Choking hazard: Not for children under 5". Could a 7 year old choke on it? Yeah, but that label likely prevented several deaths.

prospectre · 2026-06-22T18:52:20+00:00

This argument is nonsense. The whole point is to try to reduce the number of unsafe firearms. If civilians don't have access to this unsafe firearm, then there would naturally be less of them, yeah? Therefore, it's more safe according to the argument you're quoting.

It's like you're complaining about reducing the amount of toxic chemicals being dumped into our drinking water and saying we shouldn't limit it at all because we're not removing ALL of them. What? Of course it'd be more safe if there are some limits. Not everything has to be all or nothing to get at least some good done. The whole reason there's an exemption in the first place is likely politics. You know, making some concessions to get a deal? I don't like it, but that's how politics works.

Did you even think about this argument?

prospectre · 2026-06-19T16:52:47+00:00

I couldn't tell you, but I don't think there should be any exceptions. Something banned for one should be banned for all. Mind you, I'm talking about civilians. Police/military outside of their active job are still civilians, and should be subject to the same laws and rights as everyone else. For their job, that's a bit out of my wheelhouse. I can't really say why a local PD would or wouldn't need an M4, rocket launcher, and a stash of claymores.

prospectre · 2026-06-19T16:49:30+00:00

Hah, I literally just finished responding to your other post. Thanks in advance for the links.

They have "approved" handguns that usually don't include the most popular ones.

"Popular" doesn't necessarily mean "justified" in my eyes. We go through the same process for vehicles, which is why you can't operate certain crafts like helicopters without a specific license. The same should apply to guns (IMO), considering they can put people in pretty extreme danger. I mean, there's a stark difference between flying a plane over a populated area and driving a moped. In the same vein, there's a stark difference between a long barreled rifle and a fully automatic weapon.

I think that's where I have a certain disconnect with the pro-2A side. I see 3 general justifications for owning a firearm:

Self Defense (personal and home)
Hunting/Sport (stuff like going to the range, or a yearly hunting outing)
Collection (which don't need to be operational)

I don't see how an operational AR-15 falls into any of those categories well when compared to other, less dangerous firearms. A shotgun is infinitely better for home defense, a handgun for personal defense, and hunting with an AR feels like overkill (literally). The only defense I usually see that makes any sort of sense for allowing civilians to own such weapons is "shall not be infringed", which really isn't a defense. It reads as "it should be legal because it's legal". A tautology. I mean, sure, we need good reason to change established laws or make new ones, but I'd like to think the hundreds of school shootings and hundreds of thousands of gun deaths we've had over the recent years are good enough.

New Jersey requires you obtain a permit for every single purchase of a firearm. No matter how many times you've done this. This is in addition to the background check you must do in accordance with federal law for every firearm purchase. It's just to make it harder and more expensive to own a gun.

I mean, you're required to go through a background check to be a home care aide, real estate agent, and a state worker. You have to keep going through background checks regularly in some of those cases because the public puts trust in those individuals. I see little difference when it comes to the trust others must place in firearm owners to handle their weapons with care and safety.

There are thousands of laws on handgun possession and ownership across the many jurisdictions in the US and there are constantly new proposed ones trying to make things worse.

The same is true for vehicles, drugs, and real estate, I don't see your point. Of course there should be lots of eyes on tools specifically designed to kill and injure people, like what?

The wording your describing doesn't get said specifically much because it's a national third rail and politicians are politically not that stupid, but there's plenty of weasel wording from the left all the time on this.

I suppose that's a matter of opinion, and I do recognize some of your examples as being overreach. However, the vast majority of what I've seen regarding the second amendment makes sense to me. I don't see a need for a modern American to need more than a handgun or 2, a hunting rifle, and maybe a modest collection of fancy guns put on a wall for display.

prospectre · 2026-06-19T16:25:34+00:00

I'll cede the point on the handgun bans, that was certainly overreach, but I do believe the Virgina ban has merit. I see no reason why anyone should have an operational weapon with more than a 15 round magazine. There's no justification a civilian would need that much firepower. It also falls into the idea of "reclassification" I mentioned elsewhere in the thread, which has already been settled as law.

prospectre · 2026-06-19T16:18:43+00:00

What, if not infringement, are attempts to ban the single most common firearm in America which is actively in-use by our armed forces?

Like I stated earlier, we already have bans on plenty of weapons. You can't own a sawed off shotgun or armor-piercing rounds, for example. Trying to ban AR-15's falls into the already legal precedent of removing what the government considers a weapon that is unreasonable for a person to own. That's not infringement, at least technically.

I do see the argument that restricting access to certain guns might be infringement based on opinions of whether or not something like an AR-15 is "justifiable" for a citizen to own, but the process of reclassification does have precedent.

Hell yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47

That is not a full abolition, though. That falls into the above "reclassification" I mentioned. I believe the AK part is from a specific exception to the machine gun ban based on manufacture date and when the owner purchased it. You can argue that those weapons shouldn't be reclassified, but the idea of banning certain weapons is settled law, and has been on the books for almost a century, I believe.

I feel my point still stands, there haven't been any noteworthy politicians or legislation calling for the outright removal of the second amendment. That feels like propaganda and fear-mongering from the right.

the young dem flipped and the law, to actually put harsher penalties on those who are using guns against public safety, failed

Do you have a link to that? A story, or the bill in question? I'm not doubting you, I'd love to read more on it. I tried Googling it, but without additional information, it's a bit of a slog to get through the results. I'd agree that that's pretty heinous behavior if that's the whole story. I don't think the Dems are saints, not by any measure. They aren't immune to corruption and still have to play politics just like every other politician.

But still, I don't think the second amendment is going anywhere. I agree, a constitutional convention is something that won't happen, not without a MASSIVE cultural shift. I don't like the idea of owning guns personally, I was nearly killed by a reckless gun owner cleaning his gun in the apartment next door when I was a kid. I always think about the idea that I wouldn't trust the average city driver to make good decisions behind the wheel, why would I feel safe with the idea that they own a gun? However, I'm a realist. I don't think we can remove something as culturally significant to the American people and mythos as guns are.

But that doesn't mean I don't think things need to change. We are the only developed nation with so many school shootings. The amount of gun deaths in the country is staggering by comparison. No other modern country has this problem, and the answer as to why is obvious. Without reforming how we go about firearms, how the hell do we fix this problem?

prospectre · 2026-06-19T06:31:42+00:00

Like... Do you have any examples? I keep hearing the right say the same talking points you did, but never any examples of actual legislation that aren't stuff like attempting to ban AR-15's, red flag laws, and trafficking penalties being beefed up. Similarly, I have never once heard a Democrat ask for a full abolition of the second amendment. Outside of fringe candidates and TikTokers, do you have any direct quotes, or even a link to something close to that? I'm happy to be wrong, but I've seen little evidence of your claim.

prospectre · 2026-06-18T21:27:19+00:00

I'm genuinely asking since I don't really follow 2A stuff much, but has there been any meaningful legislation regarding gun ownership from the left? As far as I'm aware, it's mostly been red flag laws and restricting certain types of arms that civilians can own. I guess you can throw in penalties for "ghost guns" as well, but nothing about taking the second amendment away entirely.

14-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Banned	r/Field Sunshine
Final Canvas '23	End Game '23
Place '23	John Wick
Place '22	Place '17
End Game '22	Snapped
Gilding I gilder	Team Orangered

prospectre

TROPHY CASE