ChillDude69

joined 9 months ago
[–] ChillDude69@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 4 months ago

If anyone can tolerate full-contact Klingon nookie, it's a former Borg.

We all know she only goes halfway to full force with Tom, and he still probably gets all kinds of contusions and cuts. And he can't just step into an alcove and regenerate that shit. Dermal regenerators and hyposprays will only get you so far.

[–] ChillDude69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 4 months ago

That's how I'd want them to dispose of me, if I died in the Star Trek universe. I mean, they already launch some of their dead people into space, in torpedo-casings. Just pack as much gunpowder as you can, around my corpse, and set that shit to detonate.

[–] ChillDude69@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 4 months ago

I love this so much. No notes. I have nothing to add. I want this to be a thing.

[–] ChillDude69@lemmynsfw.com 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

"Double strong, double sweet."

[–] ChillDude69@lemmynsfw.com 4 points 4 months ago

I heard that in Quark's voice.

[–] ChillDude69@lemmynsfw.com 5 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I don't think you understand the degree to which I can hear this in his voice.

[–] ChillDude69@lemmynsfw.com 12 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

"Gee, where you been, Commander? The entire uridium industry's gay. Starship design, too. And the interstellar freighters."

[–] ChillDude69@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

The size of this image is making it a little weird. This one was clearly designed to be a full-sized poster, and unless you're viewing the image on a very large display, it kinda pushes the amount of convergence that your eyes have to do into the slightly-too-small range.

That means you're likely adjusting your eyes to a point that doubles the correct convergence distance, and you're getting a garbled image.

Even when you do get it to appear correctly, the too-small size will make the illusion of depth somewhat less effective than it would be if you were looking at it, in the intended scale.

EDIT: The source for this knowledge = every book about stereograms that I could ever find. Which was weirdly only a couple that actually discussed how they work, rather than just having a bunch of them printed. But I was legit OBSESSED with stereograms, back in the 90s. I read about them the way a kid who suddenly grows past 6'4" suddenly starts reading about basketball.

[–] ChillDude69@lemmynsfw.com 5 points 4 months ago

Apart from my telepathically unreadable brain, they're my best feature.

Hmm. Now that I think about it, the brain parts are also lobes.

[–] ChillDude69@lemmynsfw.com 4 points 4 months ago

Goddammit, I knew I shouldn't have looked on eBay, just to see how much that poster is.

I am NOT spending 130 goddamn dollars on that fucking poster.

But I need you all to understand that I desperately WANT to do exactly that.

[–] ChillDude69@lemmynsfw.com 6 points 4 months ago (2 children)

In this case, the gold brick might also be filled with latinum.

[–] ChillDude69@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I feel like this line of reasoning is how Chakotay's people wound up with that electric ball-tripping machine.

 
 

I've never met anyone who does this. I've never HEARD of anyone who does this. I cannot think of any possible reason WHY anyone would want to do this.

So why is it an option in so many games?

Why do so many games not even offer the option to change the X and Y sensitivity together? For a LOT of games, you have to set both X and Y independently, and make sure that you set them to the same value.

When you can just type in a number, or you can click increase/decrease buttons to advance the numbers, that's fine. But there are some games where it's just sliders, and you have to oh-so-carefully drag each slider, until the readout (which often goes to three digits after the zero) is where you want it.

It's not a huge problem, but I'm just asking: is there even anybody out there, who really wants to have different sensitivities, on each axis?

I'm not judging. I'm just really, really curious.

 
 
 
 

It's less sexy, isn't it?

 

You see this shit SO much more often than you would think. And the infuriating thing is, it seems to be most common among programs that are INCREDIBLY complex and sophisticated.

It'll be like this:

"What does my program do? Glad you asked. It simulates stress patterns in glass and ceramics, after they come out of a kiln. You can specify any melting temperature, adjust the composition of elements in the glass, and the ambient temperature of the cooling and tempering stages."

"Wow, can you show me how it works?"

"Sure! "

"O-oh. Do you have any plans to add a graphical user interface?"

"HAHAHAHAHHA, no. That's never happening. And here I thought you were serious about using advanced software, and being an intelligent person."

Obviously, that last part is just kinda implied. But sometimes, when users request a GUI, the goddamn developer will kinda get in their face, like that.

They always fall back on the position of "well, I developed this shit for free, for your ungrateful ass. So you can build your own fucking GUI."

But the thing about that is...no. And fuck you. I shouldn't have to be two-thirds of a fucking developer, in order to use the fucking software.

If you can figure out how to simulate molecules, or draw 3D stereograms, or translate hieroglyphics, or any other RIDICULOUSLY COMPLICATED SHIT, making a graphical user interface should be nothing to you. You should be able to do it in a fucking afternoon.

IT DEFINITELY SHOULD BE THE EASY PART, FOR YOU.

All the rest of us, who aren't programmers? We envy programmers, and their ability to really connect with computers, on that deep logic level.

If we could do that shit, we would. But a lot of us have tried, and we realize it's not a good use of our time. We can do cool stuff with software, but it's just not ever going to be worthwhile for us to struggle through the act of creating software.

Also, I hasten to add that I have put in my time, using command line interfaces. I used DOS, I used BBS systems, I have used modern command-line-only programs. I know how to do it, but I DON'T WANT TO.

I don't want to have to memorize commands. I don't consider a GUI workflow to be some kind of weird luxury. It has been a basic part of modern software, for around 40 years at this point. Literally get with the program, guys.

If you're serious about making software, get your shit together and implement a fucking GUI from the very first release. Nobody ought to be taking you seriously, if you refuse.

 
 
 
 
 
view more: next ›