green

Therapist: Stop being silly, you can't hear emojis.

^ the emojis

Agreed, the "well regulated militias" argument was always nonsense.

People can barely work together in office spaces, have zero appreciation for democracy, and have zero discipline. Yet we expect these same people to painstakingly learn combat, change their lifestyles, and agree who the enemy is.

For full transparency, I support 2A - but I support it because it is the best way to be uncooperative with violence. This is extremely important for not only having any chance against a corrupt government, but also your hysterical neighbors - who want to lynch you for being a witch.

P.S. Remote areas tend to be significantly more violent than populated areas. This is a phenomena observed through both anecdote and data. Protecting yourself from rabid neighbors in remote (often rural) areas is a genuine use case!

I think the rule of thumb is to never take a conservative at their word. They seem to only argue in bad-faith for their own personal gain (whether it be money or pleasure); and will go as far as changing the meaning of words and reality to be "correct".

When a conservative makes a hypothetical, just assume it has no nuance, practicality, nor scientific process. If it did the militia argument would've been dead-on-arrival.

I challenge you to look at this from a different perspective.

The people with the (severely under-powered) guns come out, shoot some people, and then what?

The American populace has shown itself to be completely spineless and incapable of doing anything useful. At least 50% of the country will condemn your actions as "not the right way" - even as fascists are rounding them up and sending them to El Salvador.

So what did you just throw your life away for? Making no change, and potentially even setting back the cause. Guns will not fix the deep seated rot in America - no matter how many times you say it. Anyone with a brain looking to win (not the same as being correct!) will not show their hand now.

Just no man.

Yes, JavaScript has been the most popular language but it is exclusively because of the front-end. Many companies do not want to pay for separate back-end devs and ask their front-end devs to do it instead. These people (ab)use JS because they're most comfortable with it and are under crunch; so we end up with the abomination that is back-end JS.

It is NOT rivaling much lower-level languages; it can't even rival C#.

First off, it is interpreted. You are never going to be faster than competently written C, C++, Go, nor Rust. Secondly, the resources it takes to exist makes in a non-option for embedded machines - which Social-Security facilities are all but guaranteed to use.

Not to mention the horrendous (and insecure) package infrastructure, and under-powered core libraries - it would be the fullest extent disaster.

The saddest part? The larpers at DOG(shit)E are all but guaranteed to pick the worst tools for the job, over-engineer, and have extremely poor management. Meaning whatever they ship WILL collaspe the system day 1; and all of the people refusing to pay attention will be like "hOw CouLd THis HaPPen"

Yeah, the world is sliding into global fascism, and fast.

Even "Never Again" Germany has a major political party sympathetic with Nazis (AfD). If you talk to the average person in America, it is okay to have all of your rights stripped as long as you can use TikTok. We're in very dark times right now.

If anything, I think that people from around the world are very disconnected on average. The average person can barely care to support Ukraine, when Putin is clear-as-day running Stalin's playbook.

Lemmy and Reddit are not real life.

thanks again. and yeah my mistake on the warcraft (now edited)

True on all accounts

I would like a "federated" and open battle simulator. I would also like some viable alternative to pokemon for turn-based monster battling (the only one I know of is Temtem, and it's not doing well). Pokemon could also pull the plug on "Pokemon Showdown" at any moment. Though they are benevolent today, they may not be tomorrow.

I'm not really looking to compete with Pokemon, it just has a game-mode that inspired the project. Kind of like "Warcraft 3" and "League Of Legends" - they are not competitors at all, but LoL wouldn't exist without Wc3.

Thanks for the advice.

I think this is something I would enjoy doing even if no one played it. I'm not necessarily looking for thanks, but I also recognize it would be a massive waste of resources - which could be spent on a project people find useful. It's also a multiplayer game, so without players, it would be truly pointless.

I think I'll go through with it though; if there's general curiosity, there's a chance.

Good points. I'll include the link in the post and ask over in the pokemon community.

Ironically, in my (limited) experience, the core pokemon fandom tends not to be interested in VGC.

You make great points, and I will not necessarily refute any of them. This is why I said prior that I wanted a bunch of mathematicians to work towards a solution to this. There are many small and careful considerations that have to be made.

I think a heuristic (simplified model) may work better than trying to flat out solve it. As I said, this is not to refute, just a thought.

First, the problem is fundamentally chaotic (as you've said) there is no point in trying to accurately predict (solve) the outcome. Choosing "properties" that tend to be consistent, and then basing "success" off of those may be the more practical option. What these "properties" are would depend on consensus - models have elements you deem important, which may not actually be (as you've said). This is just something that needs RFC - hence needing a group of mathies.

Secondly, whatever the solution turns out to be needs to actually be do-able for the average joe. If there is a straight up solution, and it turns out to complex, I think it would be less valuable than a simple-to-do heuristic. If people don't follow up it's just worthless - and seeing how long it takes people to do very simple things, we'll be waiting hundreds of years.

I'll read the two articles you linked (I've read the abstracts) but it'll be a slow burn.

Just guessing, it likely failed due to:

• Being relatively unknown
• I2P being relatively small
• Java being a non-standardized language
• No data verification (malicious host can corrupt data)
• Poor UI and UX
• The main developer leaving

These are killshots to this type of service as people need to develop/extend/use it - for it to be viable. It is in the right direction, but (similar to many cornerstoning attempts in FOSS) is not handled gracefully.

Yeah the uni-directional relationships are also significant. It also happens to translate well; if Mr.Beast goes to randomcorp.com he is almost guaranteed to pull more people over than if SchmoeJoe went. Those people in turn would cause the website to be a more attractive option (less weight on the edge).

That would mean that there even is nuance within tyranny, which is funny to think about.

There's also the possibility of cycles! What a fun rabbit-hole. Definitely worth a thesis paper or large-scale open discussion.

P.S. Also agreed that with a "limit" it is not TSP, and is much simpler. It evolves into TSP only when you think about a message originating from a source and making it to everyone - with the same effect for responses.