It’s been a while but from what I remember every character woman is either an idiot or a manipulator.

They took the witch from the first game and made her a conniving lying betrayer.

The way Leah was written is… Not good. Weird purity issues. And she dies horribly.

The female follower NPC is… A scantily clad enchantress.

You start to see a theme and wonder about what the author thinks.

I feel like stupid is consistent. Someone who is stupid will wear these glasses, and also act like the manager in this story.

Because they’re blood soaked assholes who would be facing very uncomfortable consequences if there was justice in the world.

I completely forgot diablo: immortal even existed. I see it has generally poor reviews, which is not surprising.

At launch, it was pretty bad. The story was awful. Bad writing. (Whoever wrote ‘How tastes your fear?’ needs to go back to school). Misogyny.

The gameplay was really bad at launch. The auction house borked it up. The game is essentially a lot of gear checks, and at launch you would slam into that wall pretty frequently. The same tactics would wipe or be a snooze based entirely on the numbers on your gear. Getting good gear was really hard, unless you used the auction house. It was deeply unsatisfying. Also most of the random boss powers were really annoying to play against.

Even after the expansion and updates, it tends to turn into disco laser rollercoaster. Personally, I’m not a fan of that. I preferred the original’s more sedate, gloomy, mood. Holding down right click to shoot lasers and drop meteors for billions of damage is amusing for a little while, but it’s so tactically shallow it doesn’t hold my attention for that long.

I played it a lot anyway, because the first two games were favorites in my youth. I didn’t even get 4. Fuck microsoft.

One time at work someone had the idea of “let’s all swap our favorite playlists”. No one was happy. I got some like top of the charts rap that’s not my jam. The product lady got my sludgy doom metal and I don’t think she made it through one track. I think the mega kpop fan just refused to participate.

I think part of the problem is that Bethesda doesn’t really seem to have a good critical understanding. They like the superficial stuff, like children. Like this meme, I guess.

If you haven’t read Eco’s essay on ur-fascism, it’s a good read: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/umberto-eco-ur-fascism

So we come to my second point. There was only one Nazism. We cannot label Franco’s hyper-Catholic Falangism as Nazism, since Nazism is fundamentally pagan, polytheistic, and anti-Christian. But the fascist game can be played in many forms, and the name of the game does not change. The notion of fascism is not unlike Wittgenstein’s notion of a game. A game can be either competitive or not, it can require some special skill or none, it can or cannot involve money. Games are different activities that display only some “family resemblance,” as Wittgenstein put it. Consider the following sequence:

1___2___3___4

abc bcd cde def

Suppose there is a series of political groups in which group one is characterized by the features abc, group two by the features bcd, and so on. Group two is similar to group one since they have two features in common; for the same reasons three is similar to two and four is similar to three. Notice that three is also similar to one (they have in common the feature c). The most curious case is presented by four, obviously similar to three and two, but with no feature in common with one. However, owing to the uninterrupted series of decreasing similarities between one and four, there remains, by a sort of illusory transitivity, a family resemblance between four and one.

Fascism became an all-purpose term because one can eliminate from a fascist regime one or more features, and it will still be recognizable as fascist. Take away imperialism from fascism and you still have Franco and Salazar. Take away colonialism and you still have the Balkan fascism of the Ustashes. Add to the Italian fascism a radical anti-capitalism (which never much fascinated Mussolini) and you have Ezra Pound. Add a cult of Celtic mythology and the Grail mysticism (completely alien to official fascism) and you have one of the most respected fascist gurus, Julius Evola.

This was Hinge, which is owned by Match Group (who own okcupid and many others). It’s the least bad, I found, but that is extremely faint praise.

I used to use OKCupid way back. It used to be better. I’m pretty sure you could search. Like you could just type in “Star Trek” or “Dark Souls” and find people who had that on their profile. Nowadays you just take what the algorithm gives you.

Glad I finally am in a position where I’m not on the apps (knock on wood, etc). I was getting dates but I could always tell it was in spite of their best efforts.

And even the person I’m with now, I feel like the app algorithm thought we’d be like an 80%. On paper it doesn’t seem like it’d be a long term fit- i have a cat, she has a dog. I like a lot of metal, she likes jam bands. Lot of room for the algorithm to predict we’d have a few dates and then it wouldn’t work out.

And as someone else said, most of them are owned by Match group. Even the myths of capitalism require competition for products to be good. Match should be broken up.

Though APD fired Eder on July 17, prosecutors officially refused to move forward with felony stalking charges in the case.

Prosecutors are part of the problem

Did you get this from FromSoft games?

Generally, the fewer people driving, the better the experience is for those who do drive.

Yeah I’m probably suffering a little because I don’t have any real social media, and my GitHub is all private contributions for work. I should probably do some free work to show off there but I resent that

A friend of mine is convinced they all feed into sketchy private data broker systems, and reject candidates based on personal and political stuff. Algorithm determines you’re kind of a lefty? Reject.

We have like no rights here in the US with regards to labor, so they can basically do what they want so long as they cover half of their ass.

Most coding challenges are stupid. You’ll have a job that’s just working on a basic ass API in front of the database, and they’ll be like “can you solve the traveling salesman problem?”. You don’t need to know if I can pull fancy algorithms out of my ass. You need to know if I can cover the basics and take feedback.

Though the last code challenge I had was “can you remove duplicates from this list of integers?”. I was like, "can I just convert it to a set?’ and they were like “…ok”. Didn’t get the role, but the pay was bad, it was in office, the company is surprisingly politically conservative, and they’re rewriting their codebase “to support AI development”. So maybe that sas for the best.

There was a job I applied to that wanted the exact thing I had done at my last job. Same tech tech. Same early startup. Same kind of project. They rejected me without even a phone screen for “someone more in line with their needs”.

There’s no incentive for them to do a better job.

By the time you’ve read this it’s too late not to read it.

But maybe you meant longer content than just a headline

I’ve had several girlfriends who were like “you play video games? Like… <worried expression> call of duty?”

They were all relieved when I was like no.

Less relieved when I got them to play cuphead co-op.

You could perhaps still have enshittification in a worker owned organization. It seems more likely to happen when the decisions are being made by rich ghouls and absent shareholders, rather than the people who actually made the product.

A big problem is often lack of competition.