Offline play? It’s SOLITAIRE. Offline play should be the ONLY play, by default.

Feeling like I took crazy pills this morning…

First, I think it would be to your benefit to investigate whether this project of yours was even interesting to your grandparents. Youve shared your interpretation of the situation (they are practically homebound and may be missing out on some experience with the wider world), and it seems reasonable, but it does not account for their perspective. They may not be missing anything about the wider world. Or, maybe they are missing some aspect of it, but don’t view “digital tourism” as a valid substitute. Most likely though, they’re just pleased their grandchild is visiting and want to focus on that, rather than the TV or computer.

As an illustrative example, imagine an introvert and extrovert coworkers. The extrovert discovers the introvert has no weekend plans, and assumes that they must be lonely or sad. They, with the noblest of intentions, try to cajole their colleague into going out on Friday night. The introvert, who has been looking forward to finally being able to settle into their latest novel, is upset that the extrovert is projecting a void onto their lives that they don’t see as a void at all.

I’m not saying that that is what’s occurring here, and obviously you know your grandparents better than strangers on the internet, but I do think it’s a possibility that should be investigated before you commit to any plan.

Well some smart arse put up a sign that said “1 robber occupancy max” and now they’re all queued up outside the urine depository. Haven’t moved in days .

But not impossible! Don’t let your dreams be dreams.

Whether it’s and advantage or not depends on your perspective. If you want the fediverse to supplant Big Tech, then no, having a culture which is not welcoming of outsiders is not an advantantage.

However, if you happen to be a part of Lemmy’s “in-group”, you probably don’t want a bunch of “normies” flooding in and cluttering up your feed with what you consider to be low effort shitposts, or starting drama in the comments. In that sense, maintaining a barrier to entry is an advantage because, in this mindset, if they can’t be bothered to wrap their head around a slightly more complex signup than usual, than they weren’t going to be good members of this community.

Perhaps some will disagree with my interpretation of the two popes (I meant poles, but I’m keeping the typo) of users here. To be clear, I’m not ascribing a value judgment to either position. I think both have valid points, and, frankly, I’m not sure where I come down on it.

I think Cormac McCarthy’s The Road may fit the bill a little bit as far as “hard post-apocalyptic”. I can’t say for sure, as I didn’t finish the book. I found it to be too depressing at the time. Which, duh, but it goes to show that the author is uninterested in the power fantasy that often accompanies the genre.

If those kids weren’t busy troubleshooting driver issues, they’d be very upset.

i don’t know a damn thing about linux, but that seems like something that would happen

I’m speculating, but I believe that’s a portmanteau of “gut” and “cunt”…

Many (but not all) private schools in the US are religious. From elementary school through college I attended Catholic affiliated schools. This sort of display would not be allowed at most public schools, and the ones that would allow it would be sued.

Say what you will of the aesthetic being virtually insane, but personally, I think it’s supa dupa fly.

I imagine it’s something of a difference in expected audience behavior. I would think that, for most people, looking at a few of the top comments and their replies is all the engagement with a post they want to have. So, a voting system facilitates that process by highlighting a few items the hive mind likes, and leaving the rest in relative obscurity. Whereas forum style posting sort of assumes that everyone present in a thread is in conversation with one another, hence chronological organization.

Continue to be thankful. I made some boneheaded choices in college which resulted in my throwing away a full ride, and I left school with like 80k in debt. Thankfully, I am much more fiscally responsible than I was academically responsible, and I managed to pay that off over the course of like 7 years (aided in no small part by the forbearance periods Biden forced through during COVID). Which is good, because more boneheaded choices were made which resulted in a significant change to my financial situation. If I were still making payments at this juncture, I would be in a position where I’d be moving back into mom’s basement just to make ends meet.

Not that there is anything inherently shameful in that (it’s fucking hard out here, and if that’s a resource that you have available, it should not be turned away simply because of pride), but it does cause me to wake every morning pleased I didn’t listen to any “financial gurus” out there who talk about shit like “good debt”.

As neat and tidy as your explanation is, I think you are vastly oversimplifying the concept.

You say the moon is real because you can see it, and you can prove it’s there by telling other people to just go look at it. Alrighty then, I’ve seen bigfoot. In fact, lots of people say they’ve seen bigfoot. Therefore he must exist too, right? The photos “prove” his existence just as much as you pointing to the sky saying the moon exists cause there it is.

Now, I realize that there’s probably some degree of hyperbole in your statement, so I’ll walk this back a little. If the defining metric of your separation between these concepts is whether the hypothesis can be proven through experimentation, that’s all well and good. However, I would argue that, in 99.9% of cases, it’s still a belief statement. Let’s continue with the moon example, but, rather than “seeing is knowing”, let’s apply the same standard that you applied to God. So, you “know” the moon exists, not just because you can see it, but because it’s existence can be empirically proven through experimentation. What sort of experiments would you conduct to do that, exactly? Have you done those experiments? Or, like the rest of the rational world, do you accept that scientists have done those experiments already and decided, yup, moon’s there? Cause, if you’re taking someone else’s word for it, do you personally “know” what they are saying is true, or do you believe them based upon their credentials, the credentials of those who support the argument, and your own personal beliefs/knowledge?

As another example, let’s imagine for a sec we’re philosophers/scientists of the ancient world. I have a theory that the heavier something is, the faster it will fall. You may know where I’m going with this if you remember your elementary school science classes. I believe in the power of experimental evidence, and so, to test my theory, I climb to the top of the Acropolis and drop a feather and a rock. The feather falls much more slowly than the rock. Eureka, I’ve proved my theory and therefore I now KNOW that an object’s weight affects its fall.

Now, anyone not born in 850 BC Athens in this thread will point out that it’s a flawed experiment, since I’m not controlling for air resistance, and if you conducted the same experiment in a vacuum chamber, both objects would fall at the the same rate. However, the technology to test my hypothesis with all of the salient variables controlled did not exist at that time. So, even though it’s now widely known that my experiment was flawed, it wouldn’t have been at the time, and I would have the data to back up my theory. I could simply say try it yourself, it’s a self-evident fact.

Finally, your statement about subjectivity of definition being an obstacle to functional language is so alarmist as to border on ridiculous. If this question were “how do you personally define the distinction between ‘yes’ and ‘no’”, then sure I can get on board a little bit more with your point. However this is much more like ‘twilight’ vs ‘dusk’. Crack open a dictionary and you’ll find that there is a stark, objective distinction between those terms, much as you pointed out that belief and knowledge have very different definitions. For the record, since I had to look it up to ensure I wasn’t telling tales here, sunset is the moment the sun finishes crossing the horizon, twilight is the period between sunset and dusk when light is still in the sky but the sun is not, and dusk is the moment the sun is 18 degrees below the horizon. So, I know that these are unique terms with specific, mutually exclusive definitions. But let me tell you something, I believe that if I randomly substituted one term for another based purely on my personal whimsy, people are gonna get what I mean regardless.

All good! You were in the ballpark, certainly. I read CAD, but not Penny Arcade, and I was there when Loss was uploaded, so the distinction is clear to me.

Wrong webcomic. Ctrl + Alt + Del is the name.

Hey, that’s funny, that’s verbatim what I say about trans folks too!

Well, at least the last bit, although I’m not ruling out the former on a case by case basis.

Man, Trespasser is an example of a game with some pretty wild ideas about immersion and puzzle solving in a first person shooter game that the tech just wasn’t quite able to pull off. If anyone is curious there is a positively antique Let’s Play on YouTube that discusses the game’s development, its relation to the wider Jurassic Park franchise, cut content, and, of course, the game in context. I think it may have come from the old Something Awful forums, and it remains, to my mind, the gold standard for what I’d like Let’s Plays to be. Worth checking out if you’ve the time.

I go to Subway with an upsetting degree of regularity, but it’s the only place where I can get fresh vegetables as part of my meal in under 30 minutes. The cheapest footlong on the menu is the Spicy Italian (or whatrver their latest menu refresh is calling it) for $10.99. Any other sub is $11.99 and up.

Are you running any mods, or rolling vanilla?

Bruh, the article your commenting on is an explanation of what’s going on since the PSN fiasco, you could just read it, since you opened the post anyways.

However, with that being said, new patch hit and added a bunch of content and balance changes. Discussion of the new content has largely been sidelined by people complaining about the balance changes. Players are frustrated that a meta develops, and then the devs nerf that meta into oblivion because they are trying to prevent “one-size-fits-all” solutions. Another complaint is that it takes far too long to kill enemies unless you are using the exact tool the devs intend you to use. Devs publicly agree that time to kill is excessive at the moment, but don’t believe the solution is just to buff all weapons. They promise to continue working on the balancing to find a happy medium.

That’s the gist of it based on OPs post at any rate.