Makes sense. I’ve always been disappointed that instead of using better processing power to make bigger, more complex games, we used it to make the same games with more complex animations and details. I don’t want a game that only differs from its predecessors through use of graphical upgrades like individual blades of grass swaying in the wind, or the character starting to sweat in relation to their exertion; I want games with PS1-PS2 graphics and animation quality, but with complex gameplay that the consoles of that era could only dream of being able to handle.

This looks really cool - I put in my beta tester registration!

Negative change worms it’s way in through small defeats. The first DLC’s were a small price for a lot of content, the first YouTube ads were only a single ad that was just a few seconds long, the first video game preorders came with amazing rewards, etc. When you allow for 2 seconds, then what’s 3 seconds? What’s 4, 5, 6? What’s 30 seconds? What’s 2 minutes? We’ve seen examples of this all throughout capitalism’s history; to ignore them is, well, ignorant.

I’m definitely in support of A, regardless. I only know complex words from having seen them used correctly in the wild; how could anyone be expected to learn them otherwise?

The ability to find an approximate definition of a new word using context - and slowly whittle it down to the actual definition over subsequent encounters - is invaluable for gaining better language comprehension.

I’m not saying to get overly bright lights. I have no idea why you keep talking about overly bright lights. When I’m not driving for work, I drive a '94 corolla with stock headlights. But even with those, I can see dark obstacles that are way ahead of me on the road. I’ve encountered deer, turtles, pedestrians, and all sorts of random stuff that fell off of people’s cars. There’s so much on the road that needs to be illuminated, even if all the other cars have working lights. The fact that you can so nonchalantly bring up a scenario in which you can’t even see another car, much less all the other stuff that might show up on the roads, makes me highly concerned for the state of your vehicle. That scenario is so insanely rare and dangerous that I can’t understand how you can just throw it out there like it’s no big deal.

It’s NOT NORMAL to be unable to see a car on the road that’s close enough to you where you need to see where their blinker are. Please, if you drive in that scenario often enough to bring it up like it’s a realistic thing that someone could reasonably encounter more than once in a lifetime, bring your car to a mechanic before you cause a huge accident.

You’re absolutely right that circumstances aren’t always perfect… Which is exactly why you need a vehicle that can maximize safety in all situations. A union jack blinker is dumb, but if you’re EVER in a situation where you can’t tell what side of a car a blinker is going off on, you’re in a situation where you need to pull off to the side of the road, turn off your car, and call for someone to pick you up.

I’ve driven for tens of thousands of hours in my lifetime so far, and I’ve never even been close to a situation like what you’ve described. Even in a snow squall or dense fog I’ve always been able to see where other nearby cars on the road are, and where their blinkers are. Not being able to do so goes well beyond “not ideal;” that’s well past the line of too dangerous. And the fact that THAT is how extreme your scenario has to get before the union jack becomes a considerable issue shows how much more concerning your scenario is than that one.

You think that headlights that can illuminate cars ahead of you are the equivalent to those shitty aftermarket LED floodlights? Really? If your car can’t see a dark car on the road with its lights off, you’re a much, MUCH bigger idiot than someone with a union jack blinker…

Dude, if your headlights aren’t enough to illuminate what’s in front of you, then it’s not that an upgrade would be too much, it’s that an upgrade would get you to the bare minimum… You literally NEED to be able to see what else is on the road with you at ALL TIMES. You’re complaining about the risk that a vaguely arrow-shaped blinker causes in the specific case where you literally can’t see the car it’s attached to. There’s a much bigger risk there, and while it’s not your fault, it’s definitely something your vehicle needs to have the tools to deal with.

There have been times where I was driving near someone who forgot to turn their headlights on at night. But that’s the thing - I knew they were there; I could see their car with the light from my headlights, and even in that dangerously-low vision, I could easy tell which side of their car a blinker came on from. Yes, I got off the road and waited a bit to make sure they weren’t near me anymore, but even in the time that I had to drive with them, I had the tools to resolve the situation safely for me.

If you’re driving in the dark with someone whose entire taillight system is out to the point where you can’t immediately tell if his blinker is on the left or the right, you need to hit the brakes and put as much distance between you and them as you can… Then get better headlights, because even in that situation you should still be able to see them pretty well just with your own lights.

Yeah, I could see it being an issue for some less-common type of indicator, but everyone who drives knows what a blinker looks like. Nobody would mistake it for anything other than the right hand turn signal.

Hell, I wouldn’t even notice the shape of the light; all you need to notice while driving is the presence of a flashing light on the right side of the vehicle - if you’re looking intently enough to notice the shape of the light, you’re not paying enough attention to everything else on the road.

As I mentioned, I have a wife who I live with and spend time with every day. We met online, and only later realized that we went to the same school, but were in different grades. We probably saw each other on multiple occasions, but we were just strangers then. I also have plenty of local friends who I spend time with as well. However, I live in completely different states from some of my oldest friends from school. We voice chat online every week, and meet up in person every few years.

I have a couple groups of people who I play video games and tabletop games with online who I’ve never even seen in real life, and wouldn’t even recognize walking down the street, but we’ve known each other for years and have real, meaningful connections. Two of the friends from one group even realized they live near one another, and have since begun dating, making plans to move in together soon.

And yes, I am a part of several online communities in forums, sites like Lemmy, and elsewhere that I keep up with. We have nice conversations and heated arguments. We help each other with problems and questions. We’re simply a group that any member knows they can turn to when they need to connect with someone.

Life is complicated, and there are an insane amount of different ways to connect with people. Amazingly, some of those are through the internet. The idea that some connections are real and the others are fake is complete bullshit, and you’re clearly making a bad argument in bad faith to let off some steam.

You can literally see that it’s a jpeg. Whatever, man. At this point you’re just trolling. But hey, that’s one of those human interactions that the internet made possible, so thanks for highlighting that for me.

Sorry, bud; you’ve been having a human connection this whole time.

Haha, we’re in a digital age, buddy. Computers are nothing more than the latest way to connect real people in real ways. Sure, bots exist, just like spam telephone callers exist and were probably major issues when that was the main way for people to connect with one another across large distances, but you’re not going to stop it by covering your ears and denying the existence of every person you can’t physically see.

I have a wife and family, I have friends, and I have online communities I care about; they’re all just different legitimate social circles. We may not have evolved for it, but we’re living it anyway, and the faster you adapt to that, the better.

… I can’t tell if you’re serious or not, but if you’re honestly so put-off by human connection and comradery, I’m disappointed. Kind of a weird take from someone on Lemmy if that’s the case, though.

In the context of people who hack their systems? I’d certainly say so.

Don’t fight for yourself, fight for the community.

It doesn’t matter what I want, it matters what the community as a whole wants, and we want more than just pirating. Nobody’s hiding, we’re just not missing the forest for the trees; it’s not honesty in discussion to boil and entire group of people down to the desires of just the few people in this thread, it’s just being self-centered.

If you want to talk about what you as an individual want, feel free, but don’t act like it’s the definitive thing to discuss when the community is greater than all of us.

The majority of people pirate, but insofar as there is a single person who wants to do literally anything else with their hacked system, then it isn’t exclusively about pirating, and the narrative to condemn the entire practice of hacking as being solely about pirating is nothing more than another corporation trying to make it harder for people to modify their own property as they see fit.

It’s the year 1.7×10¹⁰⁶. The heat death of the universe is imminent. Still listening to this banger. Modern music sucks - I was born in the wrong generation. Like if you agree.

If it comes down to it, I’ll split the cost with you. If we can’t get socialized medicine the way it’s meant to be, we’ll make it ourselves!