I thought Frozen Synapse’s ability to let you simulate your opponent’s moves was super cool - surprised I didn’t end up seeing it in more strategy games (obviously not so much applicable to the normal real-time stuff though!).

Probably a quirk of having different software. I’m on Fedia which runs on mbin, as does kbin.run which MBM is on. You’re on lemmy, so I guess something was just handled differently for you (and most users!) vs kbin/mbin users.

FYI if you’re one of the people who just sees an image, the original includes a link to this:

https://www.gamesradar.com/games/roguelike/the-star-fox-style-roguelite-whose-dev-refused-to-use-ai-voices-to-cut-costs-is-adding-an-entire-anti-capitalist-revenge-campaign-about-a-cat-girl-destroying-ai/

Bummer. It’d be cool if there was customization available on how exactly the sorting parameters work. I imagine, for example, if the weighting for a user’s own sorting could be adjusted at their end, you could get Scaled (or something like it) to get you what you’re after. Probably a pretty niche thing compared to just making sure most users are happy with the sorting most of the time though.

Have you tried “Scaled” sorting? It was added to lemmy a couple (?) months ago and tries to solve the problem you’ve described of big communities drowning out the smaller ones in a subscription feed.

SO comments are already CC-BY licensed (granted not -NC licensed, but still), but it doesn’t seem to have helped much.

Rise of Nations (originally released back in 2003) had/has some interesting ideas to reduce some of the busywork:

• Worker units will automatically try to gather/build nearby after a short (configurable) delay if they’re not doing anything.
• Cities (the main worker-producing structure) has a rally point option that’s essentially “all nearby empty resource gathering”, so you can queue a dozen workers and they’ll distribute themselves as they’re created.
• Production buildings can be set to loop over their current queue, letting you build continually without intervention as long as you maintain enough resources each time the queue “restocks”.
• Units that engage in combat without being given an explicit target will try (with modest success) to aim for nearby units which they counter.

For the most part, none of the implemented options are strictly better than micromanaging them yourself:

• You will always spend less time idling workers if you micromanage them yourself.
• The auto-rally-point doesn’t always prioritize the resources that you would if you did it yourself.
• Queueing additional units is slightly less resource-efficient than only building one thing at a time.
• Total DPS is higher if you manually micro effectively.

But the options are there when you need them, which I think is a a nice design. It doesn’t completely remove best-in-class players being rewarded for their speed as a player, but does raise the “speed floor”, allowing slower players to get more bang for their buck APM-wise, and compete a bit more on the strategy/tactics side of the game instead.

There are types of time management which I think can still be interesting. For example, are you able to afford – in the resources of time and attention – optimally micro’ing this important fight? Or are you going to have to yolo it a bit so that you can do multi-task economic tasks at the same time?

Some (much?) of the problem is that (for better or worse) skilled players can and will squeeze the game to optimality in terms of win rate, and that tends to collapse viable tactical and strategic choices. Once those choices have been optimised (the game is largely “solved”), the main way to get better is by being faster, not by being smarter.

It’s normally negative, yeah, hence the “reverse review bombing” implying that they’re positive reviews.

I’m not sure it qualifies as “reverse review bombing” if the recent review +/- percentage matches the all-time percentage. There’s just more reviews because of the shutdown, the ratio of positive vs negative hasn’t meaningfully changed (97% positive overall, 97% positive recently).

My quote is not the only content of the video; I’ve just included most of the introduction. The 13:23 long video has the following chapter markers:

00:00 Introduction 00:50 How was DOOM originally described? 02:20 DOOM clones 04:33 Quake Killers 6:06 A hypothetical question 12:05 Conclusion

Only the first half of the video is accurately described by your suggested title. The video as a whole is described by the existing title with reasonable accuracy. It’s not a bait-and-switch: the video also discusses what genre DOOM is, not only what genre DOOM was.

It seems that you (and many others) have used a heuristic of “clickbait-y sounding titles don’t accurately describe the contents of videos” and left corresponding comments. Although often accurate, that heuristic has failed in this instance.

Then let’s transcribe part of the opening:

I know what you’re thinking – it’s a stupid question, it’s an FPS. It’s the definitive FPS. And it’s a fair point. DOOM ticks all the boxes required for a reasonable definition of a first person shooter. It’s presented from a first-person perspective, and shooting the bad guys is a key part of it. But the FPS genre didn’t exist when DOOM was released. The term “first person shooter” wasn’t common until a few years later.

So what genre was DOOM? How was it originally described?

Edit I’ve now understood that quoting most of the video’s opening salvo has unfortunately misrepresented the video’s contents to the people who are still trying to leave comments without actually watching it. It’s a video about what DOOM’s genre is and what DOOM’s genre was, not only the latter. The title looks clickbait-y but is honestly pretty accurate regarding the subject of the video.

But the winky face shows how serious they’re being!?

Maybe the title was changed post-publication?

That is indeed the very first criteria listed in the sidebar, despite you being showered in downvotes for saying it.

It does absolutely flood the feeds of some subscribed users when you post 40 (!!) things in one go to a single place. Would you be willing to consider either submitting in batches or spreading some submissions into more targeted communities? While I admire your dedication (and of course don’t speak for everyone about preferences), I find this amount of stuff from a single sub/comm/mag at once really undesirable because in the aftermath it temporarily turns most of my subscription feed into just that and not much else.

P.s. you have your markdown reversed with the links - the text needs to be in the square brackets with the link in the parentheses. [text](https://example.com)

Submitted for good faith discussion: Substack shouldn’t decide what we read. The reason it caught my attention is that it’s co-signed by Edward Snowden and Richard Dawkins, who evidently both have blogs there I never knew about.

I’m not sure how many of the people who decide to comment on these stories actually read up about them first, but I did, such as by actually reading the Atlantic article linked. I would personally feel very uncomfortable about voluntarily sharing a space with someone who unironically writes a post called “Vaccines Are Jew Witchcraftery”. However, the Atlantic article also notes:

Experts on extremist communication, such Whitney Phillips, the University of Oregon journalism professor, caution that simply banning hate groups from a platform—even if sometimes necessary from a business standpoint—can end up redounding to the extremists’ benefit by making them seem like victims of an overweening censorship regime. “It feeds into this narrative of liberal censorship of conservatives,” Phillips told me, “even if the views in question are really extreme.”

Structurally this is where a comment would usually have a conclusion to reinforce a position, but I don’t personally know what I support doing here.

It’s worth noting that since FedSearch, Mastodon has actually natively implemented opt-in search on posts.

From the submission:

Not a rival, just an alternative

The realization that led us to develop PeerTube is that no one can rival YouTube or Twitch. You would need Google’s money, Amazon servers’ farms… Above all, you would need the greed to exploit millions of creators and videomakers, groom them into formatting their content to your needs, and feed them the crumbs of the wealth you gain by farming their audience into data livestock.

Monopolistic centralized video platforms can only be sustained by surveillance capitalism.

Even though we cannot pinpoint the exact budget Framasoft spent on PeerTube since 2017, our conservative estimate would be around 500 000 €

With these two perspectives it seems to be doing well, even if it can’t / won’t entirely displace the major players.