Corn Kidz 64 has the best graphics of any game of the last 20 years. I will fight and die on this hill.

I don’t think it’s out yet but there is likely to be semi-untethered hen for PS4 and PS5 soon.

The end result is comically bizarre and obviously extremely unlikely. The joke/criticism is how disconnected feminists are from the real world with their overly complicated, academic and abstract language, despite the fact that they ostensibly have a goal of influencing ordinary people into being better.

The goal of feminism is gender equality. That is to reduce the authority men have over women (and in some cases vice versa). Part of that may be to influence people toward being kinder and more understanding towards others. But another part of that might be a deeper and more complex understanding of how gender functions in society.

Think about it this way… Just because Einstein’s theory of special relativity is complicated and not well understood by most people doesn’t make the theory of special relativity incorrect. But for some reason in the social sciences you can make the argument that a theory is too complicated and therefore wrong and some people will think that argument makes sense. The theory being complicated is obviously not an argument against the theory of special relativity or Judith Butlers theories on gender.

I do find this skit funny but I think the joke is one layer deeper. I think the joke is something along the lines of this Upton Sinclair quote:

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. ―Upton Sinclair

That is men benefit from the status quo of gender relations therefore men have a certain subjectivity that we expect from them that resists thinking critically about their own position in gendered hierarchy. Seeing (especially working class) men break from that subjectivity breaks expectations and the result is humor.

deleted by creator

it has Jim Crow style laws at best and apartheid at worst.

But you repeat yourself.

On a note completely unrelated to this comment. MullvadVPN was raided by the police and was unable to provide logs and accepts cash by mail without providing personal information.

Perhaps it could be state funded? It worked for PBS for a time and it still mostly works for the BBC. Why not a browser? A truly independent steward for the open web is important and it doesn’t seem like Google is capable of that.

Trump said it in a way that he could have meant that you won’t have to vote for him again. He kept saying “vote for me now and in 4 years you won’t have to vote again”. I’m sure if you made this criticism to Trump’s face he would act like you’re being unreasonable and pretend that of course he meant that he can only do 1 more 4 year term. Trump’s supporters would respond similarly. But that’s why it’s called a dog whistle, the message gets to the people he wants it to while it forces his detractors to debate what’s going on inside Trump’s head.

If wielding power in our “democracy” is so complicated that we must exclude non-experts isn’t that an indictment of our democracy? What is it about the legislative and executive process that people are ignorant of?

While I am skeptical of the celebrity as politician trend which has been prominent over the last few decades; especially on the right. I don’t think lack of experience is the problem with the trend.

Put aside what you think about Trump’s political project for a moment. He was effective at giving conservatives what they wanted. Tax cuts and Supreme Court seats. Despite having zero legislative and executive experience. You could say the same thing about Reagan and perhaps Schwarzenegger.

I agree, expecting a strongman to come in and save us from all our political issues is problematic. We shouldn’t recreate feudalism. We need to learn to organize ourselves into a base of democratic power that we can wield towards our broad economic interests.

But at the same time our media apparatus runs on spectacle, it takes someone with the charisma of John Stewart to be taken seriously by mainstream power brokers. Perhaps he could breakthrough the spectacle and kickstart a new progressive era that could enable those democratic ends.

Because the alternative to charisma for gaining political legitimacy is going through the political system. And the longer you’re in that system the more time that system has to influence you towards ends that want to stop progress. Just look at Jamal Bowman and John Fetterman.

It’s a bad enough idea we don’t need anymore for the next few centuries.

One of Hasan’s pieces of advice he repeats often is “be normal”. People on the left can get obsessed with politics. Don’t go around constantly talking about politics when it makes people uncomfortable. Try to be relatable and likable first, only broach the subject of politics when it’s appropriate and the other person seems comfortable with it.

He’s not saying there isn’t room for deeper more intense political discussions but they require some amount of trust and good faith from both parties.

It’s probably advice I could stand to adhere to more often.

They could potentially release source only with no art assets. Then you wouldn’t be able to compile the game without either owning the game or pirating the assets elsewhere. But it would allow community members to update the game when it breaks or to add new features. Similar to the Mario 64 decompile.

While all this would be great for consumers it would probably take legislation to get publishers on board with something like this. Publishers have a financial incentive to let the games languish then force you to pay to get a “remastered” version.

The reason why subsidies in the US lead to corruption and subsidies in China lead to innovation has nothing to do with how long the industries have been subsidized.

The US subsidizes industries to bailout corporate executives that made bad decisions.

China subsidizes workers who innovate towards ends that we know we need to be working towards as a species. Such as building electric vehicles to address climate change.

Even if the economy worked how you’re suggesting addressing climate change would be a worthy investment. It’s an end that has been obvious that we should be investing in for decades. The US refuses to do it because it would take power out of the hands of the corporate executives who they are busy bailing out.

Well, where do you think the money for subsidies comes from? Taxes.

This is logically incoherent. Money doesn’t exist in nature my dude.

Take out a physical dollar and look at it… what does it say on it? If you do this you will find it says it’s a note from the federal reserve.

Every US dollar in existence was originally spent into the economy by the federal reserve which is managed by the US government. That is a matter of fact. To suggest money comes from taxes is incoherent. Taxes are how the government destroys money not how it creates money.

Now maybe to control inflation we should take money out of the economy through taxes. Especially in places where money is being mismanaged… if we do, the aforementioned corporate executives seem to be at the top of the list of places where large amounts of money is being mismanaged. Given that in the context of the automotive industry China is managing their wealth better than the US.

Well, it seems I may have wooshed myself.

Sandy Cheeks

I feel personally attacked by this comment.

I spent like 8 hours yesterday figuring out how to install viewtube on my NAS because I got the YouTube Adblock warning on my iPad.

TLDW: Landlords are colluding to fix pricing with algorithms. The FBI is actually doing something good for once and breaking them up.

I don’t remember them saying that specifically. But we did spend a lot of time on supply and demand curves which heavily implies that.

To be fair to my econ101 class for a moment when I took that class it was during the Obama years and that was a bit before progressivism made the come back it has now. A lot of people were still Fukuyamaists.

I think economics is a pretty complicated subject that is deeply intersecting with ideology. It maybe impossible fully to disentangle how the economy works with how it should work. To expect kids just out of high school to critically examine all the nuances of a field beyond the assumptions they grew up with, while simultaneously learning the basics of that field is a pretty tall order. And if the experts at the time are moving away from that way of thinking anyway, why bother?

Of course in retrospect they probably should have bothered. But that’s just how the flow of history has to work I guess.

Edit: There’s some nuance and detail I could probably add to that conclusion. But I’m running out of steam for tonight.

I learned this in my Econ101 class; if you impose rent control you will disinsintivize investment into building homes exacerbating the problem of housing supply. Some one in my class literally asked why rent control was common in places like NY and my Econ teacher dodged the question. Econ101 in the US is basically neoliberal indoctrination.

The easiest response to the textbook is to point out that the current problem isn’t supply. In the US we have 6 houses for every homeless person. We have plenty of housing stock. The problem monopoly power over housing.

Beyond that I believe that housing investment should be managed cooperatively; rather than by the profit incentive.