TychoCelchuuu

That's by far my least favorite character. I think. It just seems like a lot of shit to deal with for very little reward.

AAAGH FUCK FUCK FUCK this article does that FUCKING thing where they put "pull quotes" in but they AREN'T ACTUALLY PULL QUOTES, they are just WORDS IN THE ARTICLE that aren't repeated anywhere. FUUUUUUUCK that shit.

I've been playing the fuck out of this for the past few weeks. Really good game. I've never ever made it past stage four, though, and rarely do I even make it to stage four. Team Melting is also the team I aspire to be on.

One of the main guys behind The Vanishing of Ethan Carter is pretty pro-Gamer Gate. That got the game taken off my Steam wishlist because it made me feel scuzzy even having it sitting there. Here is the Steam curator page which also notes that the Orion main developer supports GamerGate which makes sense because that guy's an asshole.

Yeah that is not a game I'd have kids play.

"Hours" is kind of overstating things. I watched two of them, which added up to less than an hour, and although I don't own the game, I feel like I have a pretty good grasp of some basic strategies.

Valve's floor is largely frictionless, meaning that everyone is just continually rolling around and not getting any work done. It looks like a bumper car arena in there. Many employees sacrifice their desks to form a ring around the "core group," keeping it largely motionless for periods long enough to add a hat to TF2 or not work on Diretide.

Tutorial #5 by Soren does a good job of explaining how claims are the most important resource. I think he literally says "claims are the most important resource."

Dunno about specific recommendations (maybe There Ought to be a Word?) but this site also lists a bunch.

I https://www.facebook.com/notes/monaco/about-that-thief-tagline/10152178804436996

Me too. With Early Access out the Mohawk Games YouTube channel has started posting some videos and I've been watching them with interest. The game looks really neat but I'm super reluctant to buy something from a company that Wardell is a co-founder of. I'm also not a massive fan of early access so at the very least I have an excuse to keep holding off from buying it.

Was this article posted here yet? I can't remember.

Arx Libertatis is a very good move. It makes things super easy and painless.

Yeah, if I weren't using Mint I would be using Excel. But I use Mint. No real reason not to - the connection to your accounts can't be used to hack into them or anything even if Mint is compromised.

The Looking Glass Podcast is good.

I disagree (just to clarify, I didn't write that paper, I just agree with it). It's not really relevant to the larger conversation but this is one of my bugbears so I didn't want to let it pass without commenting on it.

"I am a rock, I am an iiiiiiiisland."

I don't understand why anyone likes The Town. It's like if you took the style out of Heat and replaced it with bad melodrama.

I am bad at this video game.

I haven't seen Crystal Skull in forever, but the leer is a pretty common facial expression in all the Indie movies, is it not?

In addition to the Branagh, there's the 1948 one with Olivier and a 2009 BBC TV movie with David Tennant and Patrick Stewart.

I dunno. If you read the transcript for the conference between Lucas, Spielberg, and Kasdan where they fleshed out Indiana Jones, a lot of what they say in terms of setting the mood for the character doesn't have anything to do with exploration or whatever. Jones is ostensibly an archaeologist, but that's obviously not his actual job. He's an action movie hero. These are action-adventure movies. He doesn't even have to find the things - his whole thing is "it belongs in a museum," and Mutt can still do that even if he doesn't discover the lost city of whatever.

http://thinkprogress.org/culture/2015/01/26/3615559/wikipedia-wants-ban-feminist-editors-gamergate-articles/

umm I think Shia is supposed to be the new Indiana Jones. I don't want them to reboot it, I want 1960's Son of Jones. That would be great.

So you think that the only problem with killing babies is that we're not sure whether they're going to die before they mature? That seems like the wrong description of why it's wrong to kill infants to a lot of people. I have to confess I'm not sure what you are saying. Surely if your auntie had balls (and wasn't a trans woman, etc.) she would be your uncle. That this fact is true tells us about the sorts of considerations we use to figure out which gender people are not just in this hypothetical world where your aunt is your uncle but also here in the real world where your aunt is your aunt. So if the considerations we use to figure out whether it's okay to kill someone don't work in a hypothetical world where kittens are injected with this serum, why should we think they work any better in the real world where there is no serum? Obviously you think that your ethical principles ought to work in certain hypothetical situations. For instance, if hypothetically you had been living in America in 1790, you would want your ethical principles to give you the right answer about whether you ought to enslave and torture black people. This is true even if, in the real world, it is impossible for you to have lived in America in 1790: your parents weren't alive then, nor were your grandparents, etc. So, which hypothetical situations do you think your ethical principles ought to work in, and which do you think they can safely ignore, and how can you draw this line? To me it just sounds like you're taking a case that shows why you are wrong and ignoring it by waving your hands and saying "la la la I don't care." This is definitely false - non-human animals display altruism quite often. Dolphins will sometimes save people from drowning, for instance. In any case, even if it's true, it's not clear to me why ethical consideration in terms of not being enslaved, tortured, and killed should depend on whether you can show concern for something other than yourself and your progeny. It just seems strange to say that there's nothing wrong with torturing and killing my roommate's cat, because my roommate's cat doesn't give a shit about anyone else. I mean, yes, that's true, just as much as an infant human being doesn't give a shit about anyone else. Seeing as the cat and the infant can feel pain, are currently living their lives, and so on, it just seems weird to say that they literally do not matter because they had the misfortune not to end up with a brain complicated enough to let them puzzle out various ethical truths. For similar reasons it's unclear to me why this should be the dividing line between torturing and killing something and not doing so. Infants, of course, don't go against their instincts. Moreover, many (if not most) animals can be trained to go against their instincts all the time. Finally, I don't know what the division between instinctual and non-instinctual behavior is. If I can pick up a bowl of hot soup because I've learned that soup cools down, I guess this doesn't count as instinctual because it's learned. If crows learn to use traffic lights to get cars to break open nuts for them, wouldn't this no longer be instinctual behavior, because it's learned? I think often when people draw the line between instinct (or "animal instinct") and human behavior, they're just marking out an arbitrary line. The things we do that are "against" instinct are behaviors we've picked up over time, and "picking up behaviors over time" is an instinct human beings (and many other animals!) have.