The reason for this according to flat earthers is that the light "falls down" and thus it LOOKS like the ships disappear into the horizon but instead what really happens is that the light from the ship falls down in front of you. First, of course, you start to no longer see the lower parts, because they're closer to the ground.
Discussing flat earthers and other fringe theorists is a bit of a hobby of mine. They're a really creative bunch.
Erh... yeah, you are aware that we're technically speaking of one side being vastly superior in number and technology over the other who is desperately trying to succeed against all odds and against a crushing, overwhelming military power?
I don't know if too many people would cheer if an aircraft carrier got sunk.
If I'm an advertisers and know that my products are bought by racist assholes, yes, I want my ads to be shown to racist assholes because those are the people that buy my stuff.
Erh... that's the basic principle of advertising, ya know...
I don't know, I actually like all three Star Wars movies.
Except the Ewoks. Have you ever noticed that the one scene where the Ewok gets killed from the Stormtrooper with another Ewok bawling takes LONGER than the whole explosion of the Death Star? Call me a speciesist , but when a few thousand people die it's somehow more of a tragedy than when a Furby stops working.
I was pretty much thinking that something along those lines has to be the case. The amount of P2W games has been a scourge of the game market for quite some time now, to the point where it has become near impossible to have a "friendly" PvP game anymore. Which is understandable, if people pay for every round (of game and ammo), they want some ROI. People don't play these games for fun anymore, it's an investment.
I can see the incentive for game makers, but at the same time we're dealing with problems not unlike those we see in gambling addicts where people spend all their money (and then some) to stay in the game, feeling the need to keep paying so they can remain "on top" or at least competitive. And at best we see the game makers hand out a few trinkets "for free" to their top whales. That's like a casino handing a free drink to someone who spent the last 20 hours and 20 grand playing roulette.
Something like this needs to be addressed. I have no idea how, though. Simply saying that you can't gamble for game changing bits is probably not going to solve the underlying problem, at least as long as you have "collections" of vanity items that people feel the urge of completing. Maybe if companies had to truthfully state (and have the underlying code audited by an IT savvy statistician) just HOW MUCH money you'd need to pay on average to get this or that item, we'd get people to realize just how much money they'd have to sink to get that shiny sword of ultimate awesomeness.
Since I neither play Overwatch nor Battlefront, someone might be able to clue me in, the items you (can/have to) buy are actually augmented weapons so to stay in the game you have to sell out real money or be essentially cannon fodder and target practice for those that do?
In Team Fortress 2 you would have the same, you'd find boxes that may or may not contain something valuable and you have to buy the keys to open them with RL money.
I don't know what's different this time. Is the stuff you get from those loot boxes game changing? Is it decoration, fluff and textures or are there actually different stats involved?
In a free market, you wouldn't hear about the breach and thus be happy, for what you don't know never happened, and if you shut your eyes, nobody can see you.
We barely have enough of it to keep our own citizens under control, if China wants to spy on their people they can bloody well do that themselves, too!
I keep hearing this from various shills, but none of them ever managed to give any kind of convincing argument why this was to happen. So... the usual FUD tactic, hoping that someone will believe it without any tangible argument?
Slashdot Mirror
The reason for this according to flat earthers is that the light "falls down" and thus it LOOKS like the ships disappear into the horizon but instead what really happens is that the light from the ship falls down in front of you. First, of course, you start to no longer see the lower parts, because they're closer to the ground.
Discussing flat earthers and other fringe theorists is a bit of a hobby of mine. They're a really creative bunch.
Erh... yeah, you are aware that we're technically speaking of one side being vastly superior in number and technology over the other who is desperately trying to succeed against all odds and against a crushing, overwhelming military power?
I don't know if too many people would cheer if an aircraft carrier got sunk.
If I'm an advertisers and know that my products are bought by racist assholes, yes, I want my ads to be shown to racist assholes because those are the people that buy my stuff.
Erh... that's the basic principle of advertising, ya know...
I don't know, I actually like all three Star Wars movies.
Except the Ewoks. Have you ever noticed that the one scene where the Ewok gets killed from the Stormtrooper with another Ewok bawling takes LONGER than the whole explosion of the Death Star? Call me a speciesist , but when a few thousand people die it's somehow more of a tragedy than when a Furby stops working.
Starts witchhunt against superior competitor it cannot compete anymore.
This is news? For real?
Either solves my problem.
I was pretty much thinking that something along those lines has to be the case. The amount of P2W games has been a scourge of the game market for quite some time now, to the point where it has become near impossible to have a "friendly" PvP game anymore. Which is understandable, if people pay for every round (of game and ammo), they want some ROI. People don't play these games for fun anymore, it's an investment.
I can see the incentive for game makers, but at the same time we're dealing with problems not unlike those we see in gambling addicts where people spend all their money (and then some) to stay in the game, feeling the need to keep paying so they can remain "on top" or at least competitive. And at best we see the game makers hand out a few trinkets "for free" to their top whales. That's like a casino handing a free drink to someone who spent the last 20 hours and 20 grand playing roulette.
Something like this needs to be addressed. I have no idea how, though. Simply saying that you can't gamble for game changing bits is probably not going to solve the underlying problem, at least as long as you have "collections" of vanity items that people feel the urge of completing. Maybe if companies had to truthfully state (and have the underlying code audited by an IT savvy statistician) just HOW MUCH money you'd need to pay on average to get this or that item, we'd get people to realize just how much money they'd have to sink to get that shiny sword of ultimate awesomeness.
Since I neither play Overwatch nor Battlefront, someone might be able to clue me in, the items you (can/have to) buy are actually augmented weapons so to stay in the game you have to sell out real money or be essentially cannon fodder and target practice for those that do?
You have seen the various "Meet the..." videos? This game has blood and gore, all right, but it's clearly marketed towards adolescents.
In Team Fortress 2 you would have the same, you'd find boxes that may or may not contain something valuable and you have to buy the keys to open them with RL money.
I don't know what's different this time. Is the stuff you get from those loot boxes game changing? Is it decoration, fluff and textures or are there actually different stats involved?
In a free market, you wouldn't hear about the breach and thus be happy, for what you don't know never happened, and if you shut your eyes, nobody can see you.
Those are basically the only countries in Europe that could possibly be considered "left", so what the hell is the GP talking about?
Like... say ... Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Austria, Germany, France...
We barely have enough of it to keep our own citizens under control, if China wants to spy on their people they can bloody well do that themselves, too!
Let's get our own. With Blackjack. And hookers.
The sad part is that it is Hollywood level content. With fewer explosions, I give you that.
Being for or against any policy will always result in a power shift. The question is, which power shift is better for the greater good?
Being against slavery absolutely sucks if you're a slave owner, ya know?
The difference is the threshold. People are far easier convinced to give you time (i.e. watch your junk and the ads it comes with) than money.
Fatal flaw: He ain't worth the risk of a second of jail time.
Nah, you don't buy hos, only rent them.
That's how the system should work, yes.
But when has it ever?
I keep hearing this from various shills, but none of them ever managed to give any kind of convincing argument why this was to happen. So... the usual FUD tactic, hoping that someone will believe it without any tangible argument?
Not strictly necessary. All you have to do is to ensure nobody wants to do the job anymore.
Maybe buying him would be cheaper.
Cops tend to be highly motivated if you hit other cops. For obvious reasons.
Less so when it's about politicians. Twice if they don't really agree with their agenda.