Imo what’s key to a cosy game is that you choose within the game how much you want to challenge yourself. Take stardew, for example. My mum was content just farming crops. I went into the difficult mines with lots of combat etc. You can enjoy the game if you don’t do the hard parts, or you can do them sparsely, or all the time. You choose, and that’s what makes it so relaxing.

I’m not a hardcore gamer, but usually mostly into RPGs. But I’ve also got hundreds of hours in stardew and thousands in the Sims. When I play one of those, I’m always low key scared to grow bored because I LOVE those games and I know that there won’t be another good one right around the corner.

When I got bored of Skyrim, I played the Witcher, and when I got bored of that, I played Fallout. Repeat ad nauseam, because there’s more playable, entertaining RPGs out there than any one human could play in a lifetime.

With cosy games, not so much. When you grow bored of one, chances are, there won’t be another one that’ll be enjoyable to you at all, and you’ll have to hope and wait that something good will come out at some point.

I’m not even in tech. I teach maths at night school to support myself while doing my masters. Somehow I’ve become the ‘computer guy’ at my job. All the teachers and even office staff ask me to explain software to them that I myself have never even used. I need to learn to say no.

My room is a nightmare of a mess and I’m not a drug dealer. We exist

Pursuing a primitive lifestyle because you criticize the path society has been taking since industrialization? Even cooler. It’s becoming more relevant by the day with enshittification and the ever increasing commodification of private, personal data. But blowing up people is still not cool.

It can also happen after you consent to SOME intimate acts, but not others, and the other person can take you by surprise. (That one has happened to me, im not male though)

Power over another person, the prerequisite for most sexual violence, doesn’t have to come from superior physical strength. It could come from an age difference, a professor-student or boss-employee dynamic, or some form of blackmail, for example. And the body can experience physical arousal in response to the right stimuli even when you don’t want to have sex. You can also do acts of sexual violence that do not require an erect penis.

Looked it up out of curiosity and apparently that cant happen, at least not permanently. Worst thing that can happen is that you form too strong an association between the object and arousal for them to be seperate.

I mean that one doesn’t cause health issues so I’d recommend it over q-tipping ears

Not necessarily INHERENT deficiency. Providing exception for someone who grew up oppressed, poor, abused etc can help level the playing fields and doesn’t imply that the oppressed etc person has any inherent deficiencies. Just that they’ve had it harder so far and maybe we should cut them some slack for that.

I didn’t specify in my original comment that you replied to. This is exactly my thinking. I just worry the original phrasing might be playing into eugenicists cards and feel we’d be safer if we specified that we mean exactly what you said.

Sorry I phrased it in a way that made it sound like YOU were saying certain groups should or shouldn’t have kids. What I’m trying to say is that I personally feel like even just pointing out that something is making more ‘stupid’ people reproduce keeps the narrative of who should or shouldn’t have kids alive, even if that’s not the intention. I think we should try to let that narrative die. But yeah I think we agree about pretty much everything else. I know it’s a big current problem that people delay or even refrain from having kids. And I find it quite heartbreaking, I’m very sorry you have to consider all this in your family planning.

All I’m trying to say is maybe we should consider how we speak about these issues, because prejudiced individuals and groups could read it like we’re agreeing with their prejudice, which reinforces their prejudice. I hope I’m making sense? We’re trying to say republicans are trying to keep the masses dumb, and by this we mean they like that those who can’t access the education necessary to form critical thinking skills are having kids who also won’t be able to access this education. But without this clarification, it could sound like we’re saying that certain people having kids leads to a dumber population, which is good for rightists and bad for us. Am I being overly cautious maybe?

And yes, that is what what I was trying to say about education being a driving factor!

And yeah, I’m enjoying this discussion too!

That’s all true and fair. And I’m certain that’s part of the plan of Republicans. That doesn’t mean we have to also think the way they do about it. It creates a narrative of reproduction of certain people being less desirable as that of others. While that doesn’t restrict those people’s reproductive rights per se, it creates an ethical conundrum about who should and shouldn’t reproduce. Again, I’m sure rightists believe those things, but aren’t we above that? It also reinforces the narrative that things like rational thinking skills are genetic rather than the result of education or lack thereof, which is a wholly separate issue that also has to be solved. Can’t we focus the discussion on this, simultaneously making sure more people realize what we perceive as intelligence is mainly an issue of education and not much of genetics?

‘Only stupid people reproducing’ rhetoric unfortunately is veeeery close to eugenics talking points

For much of the internet, optimization used to mean improving usefulness and usability for end users. Now that we (as a society as well as individually) can’t go without the internet anymore, optimization means improving usefulness for shareholders and/or advertisers, to the detriment of the user. This doesn’t matter to them anymore though, since giving up on search engines, social media etc just isn’t an option for users anymore.

Currently lmao. I’m using those tools as well but some specific event generators I’m using are in Fortran still

There’s no distinct generations of either physicists or codes that all retire at the same time

I had to learn Fortran for my thesis because it’s the industry standard in particle physics

I thought this was a discussion about languages people speak.

Esperanto is an interesting case though but it wasn’t designed to be as simple as a language can be (since that is highly subjective). It was designed to have as many similarities as possible to major European language in order to make it easier for speakers of those European languages to learn.

Because languages aren’t constructed, they ‘evolved’ naturally from humans communicating with one another for many generations. As such, they aren’t intended to be as simple as possible. They aren’t intended in the first place. They’ve grown over time with no regard for whether the rules makes sense because nobody designed those rules, they just happened.