• 0 Posts
  • 15 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 11th, 2023

help-circle



  • Honestly, that would have to be Oneshot, and it was amazing. All I can really say without spoiling it is that it’s somewhat like Undertale in terms of enjoyment, at least for me.

    Undertale and Oneshot spoilers

    Although I would prefer that the emotional tension in Solstice was kept with more side stuff that you could mess up and have permanent consequences. What I liked about Undertale is how your actions truly felt like they mattered in the long run. Go from town to town killing everyone? The other’s will know and hate you for it. If you instead give everone mercy, never killing a single soul, those actions won’t matter until the end. And by then, you’d be glad to have done it. So, the way you play truly mattered, and affected the game’s perception of you the player. In Oneshot, I initially thought that my actions truly mattered, but found out quickly that they didn’t. The story remains the same no matter what actions you take. That took away from some of the impact the game had. I still cried during Solstice, though.





  • mrchampion@lemmy.worldtoGames@lemmy.worldStop using Fandom
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    You could always use Invidious or Piped (instance list here) to avoid using YT directly if you want. You won’t get any ads or anti-adblocker bullshit with Invidious, so I usually use that. I’m not sure about Piped, but it seems good too. Unless your point is to simply stop using YT for anything, in which case just ignore what I said.

    EDIT: To the now 8 of you who downvoted me, just, why? No, seriously, why. If you downvote me, please at least tell me why you are instead of downvoting and leaving. It makes me anxious to think that I was a dick or spreading misinformation or just being rude and not even noticing it, and would much rather have someone say something to me so I can at least know what people don’t like. That’s not to say I would agree with it, I might not, but I’d rather know what the problem is so I can agree or disagree.






  • That’s interesting, I didn’t know that before, so I did a bit of research on this, and while you are right that Cacao seeds do absorb some lead naturally when growing, a couple studies have shown that most of the lead that ends up in cacao likely comes from after the farming stage,

    Because of the high capacity of cocoa bean shells to adsorb lead, contamination from leaded gasoline emissions may occur during the fermentation and sun-drying of unshelled beans at cocoa farms. … However, the much higher lead concentrations and larger variability in lead isotopic composition of finished cocoa products, which falls within the global range of industrial lead aerosols, indicate that most contamination occurs during shipping and/or processing of the cocoa beans and the manufacture of cocoa and chocolate products. source

    So most lead contamination came from processing the chocolate rather than from the tree absorbing it. Also, the same article says that the lead is likely from gasoline vapors, not from the soil,

    One source of contamination of the finished products is tentatively attributed to atmospheric emissions of leaded gasoline, which is still being used in Nigeria. Because of the high capacity of cocoa bean shells to adsorb lead, contamination from leaded gasoline emissions may occur during the fermentation and sun-drying of unshelled beans at cocoa farms. Source (same as before)

    I haven’t read the whole article, but I think this is good enough to serve as a counter-argument. Also, I know the article says “cocoa” instead of “cacao”, but it seems “cocoa” is basically just processed “cacao”, according to this article on healthline. So basically, the use of cacao and cocoa is inconsistent and may just refer to cocoa beans and/or processed cocoa beans.

    Also, I found this article, which seems like the abstract to this source, but I can’t figure out if it really is or not. If anyone has any idea of the relationship between the two articles I’d be happy to hear it.


  • You’re confusing freedom of access to knowledge with the application of said knowledge here. I’m not necessarily disagreeing with the rest, but I don’t like you calling this “freedom of information” when it’s clearly not, and is much better described as a kind of technological progressivism. What I mean is the idea that technology always progresses forwards, improving society as it goes forward. So, all technology ought to make people’s lives better, even though that’s not always true. I’ve been reading “The evolution of technology” by George Basalla for a philosophy course, and in it Basalla makes it clear that a lot of things that are commonly thought of technology, like that it necessarily comes from science and that it’s most times revolutionary, arguing that they aren’t always inspired by science, and isn’t always discontinuous. So I don’t think that this is as straight forward as you make it out to be. (it’s actually a good read and I definitely recommend it. Basalla actually draws upon many different examples to showcase his points, and even accepts when no general theory can be proposed, for instance, to describe how novelty arises) I understand that AI has its place, but I would argue that AI isn’t being used in the right way most times. Rather than being something used as a tool, it’s being used as a replacement for artists. Again, I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you here, it’s just I think you’re being harsh and making wild accusations, like claiming “These people just refuse to advance their own skill sets”, which makes me want to try to refute this.

    Anyways I’m done with my stupid rant, I guess.