Haha same! There’s a place for us though: if you ever get into research, robotic writing tends to work out fairly well!

Sounds like the intro paragraph to someone’s term paper at uni.

It’s heavily inspired by Chrono Trigger…heavily. It’s got dual-techs, the writing feels very similar at times, the equipment has predictable scaling as the story progresses, and lots more. The dialog is a bit saccharine for my taste; I’ve far preferred Chrono Trigger’s. Chrono Trigger has pleasant and supportive characters, but it hasn’t ever felt over the top. Sea of Stars also has some modern niceties, like timed presses for defense and offense, some interesting spell-boosting mechanics, it’s very pretty at times, etc. And it plays on jrpg tropes at times in a fun way, and didn’t feel like it overstayed its welcome. Since you love Chrono Trigger, my best guess is that I think you’d have fun with Sea of Stars. It won’t blow your mind by any means, but I don’t think you’d regret spending time with it.

I’ve started and stopped it a number of times over the past 20 years or so, and I’m finally playing it all the way through right now. At least one of those times was because I thought I HAD to fight Lavos through the bucket and thought I was expected to grind until I could defeat it lol. This time, I’ve found it really remarkable how tight it is and how well it still holds up today. Even though Sea of Stars came out last year, it feels like Chrono Trigger could have been released alongside it and it would only feel a bit more dated in some respects.

It does serve as a wonderful example of exactly what they are talking about, funny enough.

Yeah, this is why I’ve urged so many people to shop around for a country like they do a job. See what country aligns with your values, with your goals, with benefits, etc. and start working to get there. You don’t have to stay miserable if you feel like your country is not where you want it to be and you’re not the one to help fix it.

A question no one has asked yet: how often are you farting and how smelly are we talking? Because there may be a diet change worth considering if you’re putting around like Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.

Are you confusing what is democratic with what is supporting democracy? Democracy is just a system of government. A democratic country can nuke another democratic country and still be democratic. We could say they are not supporting democracy in other countries, but that’s not what anyone is talking about here.

On a small scale, that’s what some of these privacy-focused browsers are doing in regards to fingerprinting. Make the data that has to be provided as standardized as possible and randomize the rest that is being tested behind the scenes. That is really great, but we can’t randomize our behavior and there’s a lot of data we can’t randomize for the sake of functionality. Dunno how we handle that. Maybe we all install bots on our devices that act like users and go to random sites and click on random shit while we’re not using the device.

My man joins the conversation and then acts like they’re a hostage to it.

For some reason, the mobile app I primarily use doesn’t allow me to see this comment or our entire thread, so I had figured it was deleted or something. But I happen to be on desktop atm and here it is! Must’ve just been something with the app. I’ll reply, but based on the vitriol in your comment, I think it makes sense that this be the end of our conversation anyway though.

In regards to your claim that I have said racism doesn’t happen on an individual level, that is simply not true. It’s possible I have not been explained my position clearly enough, but I am also running out of ways to explain it. Since our conversation is coming to a close, I think the best way to explain is for me to try and explain both our positions at once. Do let me know if I have misunderstood your position!

My position is that racism is the combination of prejudice, systemic oppression, and other social tools of oppression that work in tandem, which limits racism to being used as an in-group against and out-group and not the other way around. An in-group individual can be prejudiced against an out-group individual, and it is racist because of the social/systemic dynamics in play. An out-group individual can be prejudiced against an in-group individual, but it is not racist because it does not include social and systemic oppression. It’s my example of “an insult is not just an insult when that person is holding a gun.” My understanding is that you believe this erases the in-group people’s experience of prejudice, and that that is racist, in and of itself. My position is that your definition equates the two experiences when they are actually very, very different and is deeply invalidating of the experience of an out-group person for you to equate them.

Hopefully at the very least in this conversation, we have reached some understanding of our two positions! We don’t have to agree, of course, but I believe it’s important that we have these conversations and seek understanding above all. That’s why I was disappointed to see your comment that felt like you actually were not engaging with me with the goal of mutual understanding. If we all stand too firmly in our perspectives, we will never see others’ and can’t ever learn.

That gets to my last point actually. I don’t consider myself lucky that you have been polite up until this point; I consider respect the expectation. That’s why I think our discussion should end at this point. When conflict turns to insults and hateful speech, we are no longer in healthy conflict; we are now just in a fight and not working towards understanding or resolution. It’s funny because we both basically have the same position, if my summary of our positions above is correct; we’re just on opposite sides. You think I’m invalidating certain experiences by excluding them; I think you’re invalidating certain experiences by including them. So since you think that I am scum, a cockroach, etc., I expect that you believe I should think the same of you. But I don’t. It’s clear that care a lot about this issue, enough to spend time with a stranger discussing it to share your perspective. I appreciate you sharing your perspective on this, and I don’t think you should sell yourself short on your intelligence, mate.

Thanks again for the conversation up until the insults, and take care of you!

Yeah, I’m surprised there’s so much praise of the combat. There was a lot of feedback on the combat after the demo, so I wonder if they tightened it up before release.

I appreciate the thought-out response! That makes a ton of sense that they would want to roast beans differently for better control. Also makes sense that they would want to blend the strengths of the different beans. I brewed my first gesha this morning and was floored by how tea-like it actually was. In the face of such an extreme, I could see the desire to pull pieces from that and perhaps blend with a natural process bean. Interesting shit.

Thanks again for the rundown, mate. It’s super helpful to understand this stuff as I work to expand my pallet; it helps me figure out what I’m looking at and what I want to target next.

You’re mixing the metaphor, mate. Gravity certainly behaves like a force in some ways and looks like a force in some ways, but also does not look or behave like a force. You have to peel away the surface level. Prejudice may look like prejudice going both between the in-group and the out-group. But an insult from one person to another is a very different thing when the person doing the insulting is armed with a gun. Now it’s not just an insult, is it? Saying “that’s an insult either way” doesn’t really summarize the experience, does it? The person being insulted at the end of a gun is having a very different experience. It’s not an insult anymore; it’s a threat of violence, it’s a threat of death, it’s a threat of “I can and will take everything from you” with centuries of violence and systemic oppression to back it.

You’re right that gravity is kind of a force. But it’s also not, and that’s very important to understand. Ya feel me? I’m not saying racism doesn’t happen on an individual level; quite the opposite. I’m saying the systemic and social oppression cannot be extricated from the individual level. And that’s why it’s not the same thing for a white person as it is for a black or brown person, when those are the in-group vs out-group respectively.

I gotta say, mate, I happened to scroll up and see another comment you made, stating that “they need to prove it” but won’t be able to “because they’re wrong.” I assume that’s in reference to me. I engage in conversations like these with the intent of just that, having conversation, seeing if we can find some understanding, and being willing to be wrong about things. That comment makes me feel like I was the only one bringing that to this conversation, and you are simply engaging with it from a “I’m right” perspective without even a consideration that your perspective may not be entirely right. Am I reading that right?

Yeah, this thread has been fascinating. It’s the most basic concept and people are wild’n out. My last comment at the bottom of this thing I think will summarize it well for anyone who reads through it all. I think the biggest concern is why people are so resistant to understanding the additional power/control and systemic shit within racism. I use “gravity” as an example, but when it comes to racism, these are people’s lives. And I’d hate to think how invalidating it would make someone feel to hear this “no” and “check the dictionary” shit in a conversation outside of the Internet.

Thanks for the writeup! I’m looking for options for single-origin coffees because I don’t have much of anything local to me. Might have to check this roaster out.

I’m still relatively new to coffee, so maybe you could help me out with something if you have a minute for a reply. I got some coffee from a local roaster and noticed a super uneven roast. This roaster has confusing labels on things, at best the coffee is sourced from a single country seemingly, so it was probably a blend. Would a roaster roast different beans differently and then blend them? I’ve always assumed that the roaster is buying the beans blended because it’s cheaper. My assumption then is that their roasting is just really inconsistent. I want to make sure I give them the benefit of the doubt though, in case roasters do typically do their blends like that. Either way, I’m looking to switch to single-origin to develop my knowledge and palate more; I’ve just always been wondering since I bought from them.

Same! Haven’t read them in ages, but this makes me want to find some again. Looks like the first game was pretty bare bones and didn’t get great reviews as a result. Hopefully this one will improve on that; I’d love a good Asterix beatemup.

If you’ll afford me a long comment, I have an example that I think will explain my confusion. If you check the Oxford dictionary, you’ll see it define “gravity” as a force. Let’s say someone says “gravity is a force” in a thread much like this. I and others clarify “well, it presents as a force in some respects, but very much not like one in others.” People respond “No, it’s a force.” I clarify further how that’s not entirely the case. “Check the dictionary.” Yes, but the dictionary is just trying to summarize a very complex subject in physics and is not a replacement for the sciences. “No one is equating the dictionary and the sciences, but people still use the dictionary definition.”

I understand that; indeed that’s how this thread formed. What I don’t understand is why, when I say that gravity is not entirely a force, it is met with a rejection of that clarification and nuance. Gravity is not entirely a force; it’s way more complicated than that. Racism is not just prejudice; it’s way more complicated than that. I’m confused why this is such an issue.

The dictionary is not a replacement for the social sciences, friend. It seems like you have a narrative in your head about why I am arguing this point, but I’d like to point out that your argument is currently standing on “but the dictionary though” in the face of decades of research.

I don’t know who that is; first time talking with them as far as I know. I don’t mind engaging with someone until they seem disingenuous; but yeah, that’s where I’ve reached with that person. A short reply of “check the dictionary” is not the sign of someone wanting actual conversation. Guessing you’ve had a similar run-in with them.