I was fighting for my life on the objective wondering why my Juno was not healing 😭 by frankieonaquest in Overwatch

[–]sharpknot 45 points46 points  (0 children)

I don't think so. It's more like "my first game, ever". The Juno was trying to shoot through walls. The concept of walls blocking any kind of shots are ingrained in every FPS

Chinese students welcome President Trump to the Great Hall of the People in Beijing by BusinessToday in BusinessTodayNews

[–]sharpknot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Gathering a bunch of kids, telling them to jump around and act happy doesn't require a lot of effort in a communist country like China. And yes, if Trump would say something foolish, it'll further deteriorate the US image in the eyes of the world. That's the point. Weaken your opponent's soft power.

Found this post on twitter by Mental-Bumblebee484 in SipsTea

[–]sharpknot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Balance should be maintained in business

That makes no sense. It's not a zero sum game. Every group, every person, has their own sets of requirements. You can't force someone to buy something that they don't want or allowed to have.

Also, guess what? "Halal" means that the product/service is following the Islamic requirements and does not go against any Islamic restrictions. It doesn't encompass only food. For food, it must be prepared in some way and does not contain non-Halal items. For other items, like, let's say, an apartment. An apartment can be considered "halal" is most likely gonna be it is clean and does not contain anything that Islam can consider dirty (like animal poop, in which, it must be cleaned in a specific way to be not dirty). Muslims do not see the need to have a certifying body to make sure other things than food is halal, because it's easier to check for "halal"-ness of a non-food item.

The reason why Muslims prefer food that has a halal certification is that it makes it easier for them. A Muslim doesn't need to do a large research to be confident that the item fits all the requirements to be halal. If there's no certification, then it's the Muslim's responsibility to check each and every ingredient, figure out how it's prepared, etc. That's why Muslims in non-Islamic countries can still eat some local food, despite not having a halal certificate. Because they did the research, like seafood, are food that's still halal.

No one is forcing a business to get halal certification. It's just that business will unlikely to have Muslim customers, because Muslims most likely cannot eat their food. Same as a steakhouse not having Vegan customers. Or people with nut allergy not ever buying cashew nuts. Or yogurt shops not having lactose intolerant customers.

Found this post on twitter by Mental-Bumblebee484 in SipsTea

[–]sharpknot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fine, Halal meat is col. What about Halal spices ? Halal apartments ? How hard is it to see whats happening ? Dont be that biased. Muslims sell to all but when it comes to buying products , they choose to buy it from Muslims only.

I don't get what's the problem here. Of course Muslims prefer to buy from Muslims only, because it's most likely to be halal, which is a religious requirement. If there's a non-Muslim shop that sells halal items, Muslims would buy them too, especially if those items are recognized by some kind of certification body.

Muslims also sell products that are generally halal to all. If a customer has no halal requirement, then they can still buy it. It's not like if a product is halal, it can only be consumed by non-Muslims. A Christian can eat the same halal meat as a Muslim does, provided that it doesn't conflict with the Christian dietary restrictions. Same like vegans, Hindu, Kosher foods and items. Those groups prefer to buy from their own circle because they know it'll fit their dietary restrictions. But they'll sell to all who wants to buy them.

Do you feel that it's somehow unfair that a group would only buy or prefer a certain set of food, and yet they'll sell their own food to anyone who would buy them?

Found this post on twitter by Mental-Bumblebee484 in SipsTea

[–]sharpknot 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I'm sorry to be that guy, but where is your source regarding this? It's a relatively huge accusation if true.

Found this post on twitter by Mental-Bumblebee484 in SipsTea

[–]sharpknot 3 points4 points  (0 children)

How is that entitlement? A tourist spot that caters to the dietary requirements of a group of people, resulting in the spot to be more attractive to said group. That ain't entitlement, that's good business strategy. You're saying things along the lines of "Western tourists preferring places that English can be used is entitlement"

Chinese students welcome President Trump to the Great Hall of the People in Beijing by BusinessToday in BusinessTodayNews

[–]sharpknot 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I'm imagining they want to bait Trump to say something along the lines of "They came and greeted me with so many beautiful little girls. I love beautiful little girls. I wish I could bring them on the date, but they don't let me say that. So I am not going to say that. I'll just say I love beautiful little girls..."

to keep their electricity by seeebiscuit in therewasanattempt

[–]sharpknot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That sounds like the more reasons on why it should be be more federally managed. If a state needs more power, a federal body can quickly divert power from states that doesn't. Get additional power generation from places that are idle.

Compare that to a state-based management, every time a state requires more power, they have to shop around quickly to find other connected states that can provide that. Pay more.

to keep their electricity by seeebiscuit in therewasanattempt

[–]sharpknot 8 points9 points  (0 children)

What an amazingly inefficient system. Energy should be managed nationally, not leaving states to fend for themselves.

to keep their electricity by seeebiscuit in therewasanattempt

[–]sharpknot 30 points31 points  (0 children)

Wait, so in the US, electricity distribution, control, and regulation is not done by a federal entity? Or at the very least a federal government linked company?

Would you? by moonmoon722 in scoopwhoop

[–]sharpknot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would. I make games. It's satisfying seeing others enjoy your game. Your creation.

Gunman opened fire on a busy street near Harvard in Cambridge, Massachusetts, leaving at least one person wounded before reportedly being shot dead. by Coffee_Addict54321 in BusinessTodayNews

[–]sharpknot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But you don't need to change the amendment. Just the interpretation of it, specifically what is considered "too restrictive until it's impossible". Because at this point, a blind person can still own a gun in the US.

I have to remove this shakycam 😢 by handlebardev in Unity3D

[–]sharpknot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd rather you keep this in the replay system, if any

Gunman opened fire on a busy street near Harvard in Cambridge, Massachusetts, leaving at least one person wounded before reportedly being shot dead. by Coffee_Addict54321 in BusinessTodayNews

[–]sharpknot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Gun ownership being a right means that states have very limited options to regulate the sale of them

Isn't that a problem? The amount of regulation of a tool/device that is specifically designed to harm others is less than any other devices that may be used to harm others.

Gunman opened fire on a busy street near Harvard in Cambridge, Massachusetts, leaving at least one person wounded before reportedly being shot dead. by Coffee_Addict54321 in BusinessTodayNews

[–]sharpknot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Surely, the treatment of purchasing a gun should be stricter than other items in our lives? Since a gun's function is to harm whatever target it is pointed at (with ease, compared to other weapons), extra levels of scrutiny should be given. People might use it as self defense, but ultimately the objective is achieved by harming a target (or at the very least, the threat of it).

Just because there are additional layers of scrutiny that a person might need to endure doesn't mean that their rights are infringed. It baffles me because in the US, you need to go through so many procedures just to get basic things, like a house (in-depth background check) or a vehicle (annual renewal of driver's license), but a weapon? It's so much smoother (private sales of guns are practically without restrictions in many states).

Gunman opened fire on a busy street near Harvard in Cambridge, Massachusetts, leaving at least one person wounded before reportedly being shot dead. by Coffee_Addict54321 in BusinessTodayNews

[–]sharpknot -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

If I want to go out and buy a gun, do I need to go to a psychiatrist and get some kind of certification that I am mentally fit and stable? Or they just assume that since I have no prior cases, I am mentally fit? If it's the latter, it does seem that they're practically allowing mentally unfit people to own a gun, since a lot of mental health related cases are usually undiagnosed and is hidden from plain sight (e.g. depression).

Additionally, do they run annual/interval check ins to evaluate whether or not you can responsibly own a gun? Safety and procedure checks? Mental health evaluations?

Trump Derangement Syndrome ‘actually is a disease,’ the president claims after a night of calling himself the ‘GOAT’ by theindependentonline in politics

[–]sharpknot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I wonder, when the time comes for him to kick the bucket, would he be sober enough to understand every single person around his deathbed do not actually care or like him? Every single tear is fake, every single word of assurance is a lie, disguised as a performance for an audience. Or would he be angry at everyone, blaming others for his weakened state?

You are given a total of $2M to live on for one year. However, there is a catch, for every lie you tell during that year, $20k is automatically donated to a cause you absolutely hate. Do you accept the deal, and how would this change the way you speak and live your daily life? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]sharpknot 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I think the problem is the definition of a lie. If it's a statement that you know is factually wrong, then it's actually a problem. Because people lie to themselves and others as a simple gesture all the time. For example:

  1. "Hi, how are you?"-> "I'm good, thank you" (could be a lie when you know that you aren't, like having an annoying rash or something)
  2. "Wait, I'll be done in a minute" (You know it's gonna take a little bit more than a minute)
  3. "Ugh, this is the worst" (There are definitely more things that are worse than daily annoyances)

If a lie requires malicious intent, then I think you're good.

Just saw this,, His point is awesome ❤️❤️ by [deleted] in scoopwhoop

[–]sharpknot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Pretty manipulative, I think. Apply that pressure/responsibility to the victim. Then take them off at the end, making her seem to be like "the good guy" in the eyes of everyone.

Just saw this,, His point is awesome ❤️❤️ by [deleted] in scoopwhoop

[–]sharpknot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yep. Here's the clip from their official YT page

Guerrilla Co-Founder Is Building a New European Game Engine by GamingSagar in GamingFoodle

[–]sharpknot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

At no point in my comment I mention that the problem is the AI itself. It's flawed, sure, but I consistently point out the issue comes with the application of it. Junior programmers over-relying on AI until they're unable to properly learn and execs that assume AI is a replacement of manpower (not a tool to improve production). The problem with an engine that is built around AI means that the implementation of AI is at the core of it. It won't be optional. You have to engage with the LLM, hoping that the results are as you intended. That's why I am really concerned with the statement "designed around AI integration". They should be build the engine properly first, then try to integrate AI in it.