Messages

Oh, I know!

Since we're having all these riots and mass protests we should have a foreign government come in, arm and train the populace, and then instigate a civil war to topple dictator Trump and put Hillary in as president.

Anyone else think this is a good idea?

Trump is a upstate New York conservative. Historically, conservatives from there have been very liberal on social issues, and what Trump has said is pretty much in agreement with that except abortion.

Most of the negative Trump stuff is straight up fear mongering and propaganda. As mentioned above, none of it is based on fact, and if it is, it's usually twisted beyond reason. Nobody who calls him a fascist has even a clue what fascism is. What's even more hilarious is that, somehow, someway, the media has taken the position of the white supremacists when it comes to Trump. See, over on /pol/ the white supremacists think Trump isn't actually a white supremacist and was just put into power by the Russians and they control him. Good job media, you demonize Trump for being a neo-nazi, but then you take a page out of their own book.

I would say Discord is more similar to Teamspeak or Ventrilo than Skype. It's more server and group focused than Skype is, which is more individual focused. The main benefits are that the use of its servers are free, and pretty much every piece of UI is more streamlined. It's also adding a bunch of kewl features like custom emotes and stuff.

I've been using it for a long while with my own group of friends, and it has been great. Before, we were using Curse voice chat, which tended to have glitches due to it being in beta. I would definitely be interested in joining a discord group if we decided to make one.

We've all gotten older, so I guess now we're all stick in the muds.

Uh... Thanks high school, I guess? College for others? Work? Life?

You seriously underestimate the capability of humanity to plug their ears and pretend nothing is happening.

I'm not talking about my vain hopes of how the election will swing. I'm talking about the reaction real people are having to what has come out. Sure, there are people who are diehard democrats who will vote democrat no matter what, but those don't matter and never mattered anyway. What matters are the independents and soft supporters who actually decide the election because they are the marginal voters. Clinton might have plugged her ears, but even her cronies are starting to lose it. And O'Keefe hasn't even released his latest video which is supposed to be the most damning.

Don't think I'm saying all this on a positive note. I have as little faith in humanity as you do, and that's exactly why I'm expecting the election to go to Trump.

@Fox

Quick, spurious changes in public opinion matter more the closer they are to the election. If the Trump "pussy" tape was released within a week of the election I would bet he would've lost. But also we need to consider the fact that all these leaks on Clinton have been cumulative. The newer stuff has tended to be more and more damaging, and it comes consistently. That keeps it in your mind: every time you learn of another scandal on top of the previous one you remember the previous one.

I'm not saying a Clinton loss is set in stone: that it is an exact certainty. When I said safe to say, I meant that it was likely given the information we currently have... and that's the best anyone can do. I probably sounded more sure than I actually am, or should be, by using that phraseology, but that's what I meant.

I think a playlist of Sargon of Akkad's "This Week in Stupid" series would /thread this.

With all the new info coming out from wikileaks/veritas, I think it's safe to say Clinton's campaign is over. Especially with the FBI reopening the case against Clinton. There'd have to be a miracle Trump scandal that's both real and something that people care about for the election to go Clinton's way.

I slept most of the day, did a little bit of work, and then played some Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale.

Pretty uneventful, I'd say.

This election has to be one of the most simultaneously hilarious and retarded creatures of politics to come out of the system. As Trump would say, believe me there have been some real doozies in the past.

If we're being honest about what a debate really is, it is a pissing match between the candidates to see who can get the most burns. In that respect, I say that it was Trump who won the debate. If we're being intellectually honest, then it was a @#$% show from the start, no candidate really responded to much of anything the other said (especially the blatant straw men either candidate throws the other way), and all in all both of them went so off topic you began to wonder if they were there for a debate, or if they were really there for a pissing match where they try to add their campaign lines as often as they can (whodathunk?).

I'm surprised, though, that the moderator was actually quite fair in comparison to the other two debates. In the previous debates the moderators were literally arguing against Trump for Clinton. In this one he was far more fair, although if we're being rigorous I think he was actually a little biased towards Trump this time.

I will agree with a lot of what you say, here, Seto, although a few things I have to comment on.

Another major problem - one that I don't really know what the right solution is - is that everyone can vote directly for at least senators. You might think that's crazy for me to say this, but let me put it this way - do you really want a nation of uneducated people voting on legislature, or do you want a team of trusted, diverse, highly educated team of individuals to go forward with it? The real problem with this approach is execution though, since disabling voting power is a great doorway to outright oppression - but this voter knowledge discrepancy costs our nation a ton of resources. The fact that things like evolution are even subject to "political debate" shows how backwards our country really is. This cripples our workforce by basically blinding individuals to knowledge that can help them be useful assets towards our development. Again, I don't know what the solution is, I just know a solution is desperately needed as we continue to lag behind educationally.

I think you're on point here. This problem has been a big issue since before this country's founding, and it still hasn't been solved. On the one hand, you have the teeming masses of idiots who have no idea what voting for one thing of the other even means, and this applies not only to direct democracy but also to representative democracy. Representative democracy just shifts the issue from the policies themselves to the representatives, which doesn't do anything to resolve tyranny of the majority nor aristocratic rule. And, on the other hand, you have blatant aristocratic rule where a minority largely has control over the government and can use it's faculties to plunder the people it's supposed to protect. The problem with government as it has been is twofold: not only do the policy makers (whether that be the demos or the archons) not have much any knowledge as to the practical effects of their proposals, the incentives all point towards using their power for their own benefit at the expense of others.

You mention how private business often does better than government, and so here I'd like how to highlight how this is different for private businesses. For a business both of these problems are minimized extensively. On the first point, businesses always have to make decisions on a profit and loss basis, meaning that effective decisions are rewarded and ineffective penalized. And on the second point, whenever an individual business attempts to use the power and money (that has been given to it as a reward for the service that it has provided to its customers) against the interests of those it serves, it is usually punished by people changing who they choose to purchase from so they lose money, which is what they want. Both the former and the latter point are really solved by one thing, and that is by profit and loss, and this is how the interests of the people the business is serving often stay aligned with the interests of the business itself. I think we need to try to look for ways we can get government the same advantage. I think we need to think of government as more of an agency that we ask to provide us with certain services rather than what it is now. I propose that the government give its citizens the universal right to secede at any time and for any reason. Like a business, this would mean that a government would need to stay on its toes to appease its citizenry, and thus governments would have to find ways to keep taxes low and services effective if they are to keep their revenue given to them by their taxpayers.

Now I don't agree with libertarians who believe we need to return to the constitution because that's where a lot of our problems lie - people seem to think the constitution only has the bill of rights and the amendments when in reality those are probably the best parts of it and weren't even part of the original submission of the document. I think the only real resolution is a reconstruction of the Constitution for the modern era. That smelly document is over 225 years old, and I don't care if it's a part of our cultural heritage, it desperately needs a system update.

I'll have to correct you here. The libertarians you speak of are only a few and far between clueless bunch who call themselves libertarians probably because of their free market bent, and no other reason. Austin Peterson is a prime example. In reality, they're usually the hardcore teaparty conservatives who ignore the terrible behavior by the newly created constitutional government which was blatantly tyrannical by the standards of people who fought in the revolution. Libertarianism was never built on constitutional government (which is more of a classical liberal thing), but rather on the principle that property rights must be universally upheld. In this respect, the constitution fails miserably for the most part, but as far as some amendments and the bill of rights go it is oftentimes solid.

In one way, I'm like why not just group Marijuana in the "Right to bare arms" category, and not have it illegal to carry? However, as long as I don't have to deal with potentially gross/hard to breath smoke smells, then I guess I'm okay. I'm not a smoker myself.

I think this is an interesting point, and needs to be explored more. The founders of the US, I believe, placed such emphasis on the bearing of arms not so much because they were special objects that people needed to have so much that they were often taken by tyrannical governments to keep people from defending themselves. I place emphasis moreso on the *take* portion, not so much on the defense. It is my view that we have ought to have gun rights not so much due to any special rule but rather a very normal (lol unintended pun) rule: things the people own shouldn't be taken from them. This should apply to marijuana just as much as it applies to guns, just as much it should apply to anything that people own, and in that respect not only marijuana ought be legal in all respects, but a ton of other drugs, too.

I think quantum computing is mostly a pipe dream. Everyone talks about how great it's going to be, nobody actually makes a working consumer product—which is the only kind of product that matters to the tech industry. I would compare it to the use of DC nearing the turn of the 20th century for transmission purposes. Everyone say's it's going to be great, and most people are trying to make it work... But it's so expensive that it is only feasible as a luxury good for millionaires or researchers. Like DC, the state of quantum computing might change in the future, but I wouldn't bet on it happening anytime soon, and I would guess that we still have a long way to go with good 'ole regular computing before the benefits of switching our whole paradigm of electronics outweigh the costs.

It seems that tech companies aren't going to focus on doubling transistor numbers every 2 years.

To me, this is exciting. Since computers began tech companies had the choice between investing in various ways to improve their hardware. Obviously up until now the most profitable has been reducing die sizes. Now that isn't the case anymore, but it doesn't mean that hardware won't improve. Instead it means that tech companies will focus on other ways, like improving architecture, or rethinking the ideas that tell them what is most efficient. Economically, the rising costs for reducing die size mean that the rest of the market values the resources used to reduce die sizes more if they are put towards other uses. I think this is the main factor for abandoning Moore's law more than technological limitations. What this tells me is that there is a potentiality for entire new tech companies to overtake Intel or Nvidia. Since they have focused mainly on reducing die sizes, they're not as good as they could be in other areas. Either they have to get better, or another new company with new ideas is going to overtake them completely. Some people might consider this a little far-fetched, but it happened to IBM so why not now?

Anyone else have thoughts on this?

Heh, thanks for the warm reception.

Been up to anything fun lately?

Right now, not much. I just finished high school this year, and now I'm working out exactly what happens next. I've gone through high school on the supposition that I'd go straight to college and get a degree in electrical engineering. Now, while I still have an interest in a career in that field, I've also taken a comparable interest in economics and in becoming an entrepreneur. Before that, though, I should also mention that I'm Mormon (specifically LDS), so I'm certainly going on a mission. For now, though I'm helping with my family-run business, so that'll give me some time to sort a few things out.

Hey all, how has it been?

It seems even as the years go by I'm still drawn back to this place. I came here excited to get into the editor, make some cool hacks, learn some code... yet, it seems in the end I didn't really do any of that. Instead, I just posted. I was always interested in the idea of hacking, but somehow I never really got into it. So I gave my thoughts and read the thoughts of others. And then, eventually, I left. I don't know when or why, but I did. And still, I feel drawn back. Maybe it's the forgotten aspiration to hack a few cool tweaks into Golden Sun... but, of course, that's not it at all. Instead, it's the nostalgia about the experiences I shared with everyone here, and about the relationships which formed between us that, I hope, weren't entirely one sided. Names and faces have changed, some have come, others gone, but I still remember some of the original names: Atrius, Jamietheflameuser, Salanewt, Role, Charon, Charleysdrpepper. And, there are more, I'm sure, so forgive me if I don't have an entirely perfect memory.

But, if we're honest, I probably wouldn't expect your memory of me to stick. I only have, what, 174 posts here? And somehow I think this forum is so important? The majority of my posts were in 2010, and most of the veterans have posts in the thousands, so what makes me so special? I've had far more posts in other forums, but I haven't felt the same way with them, so what gives? Maybe I feel such an attachment because this forum is a relic from before I moved from a big city to the middle of nowhere. Honestly, I don't know at all. In fact, this whole post is just a recycled version of previous posts I've already made in the past trying to become a regular again. So... we'll see if history repeats itself again.

Every time I try to clean up my bookmarks I take a look around to see if anyone's still hanging. And, surprisingly, here you all are, if the memories weren't an excuse enough to keep me from erasing this site.

I don't know if I'm back to stay, or if this will be another unfulfilled excursion to the GSHC, but for now I'll be here.

Still, looks like at this point he's working on what could arguably be the more important part of the game to focus on, since you spend more time in the overworld than in battles.  Good idea, I think - once we've got working navigation, maps, tiling, puzzles, etc then we can move on to battle stuff.  I look forward to trying out the demo when it's out.

I agree. The heart of Golden Sun is in the exploration/puzzles and the dialogue, both of which occur in the overworld. The combat, on the other hand, while needed to complete the project, is not particularly nuanced, I think, or especially different from other JRPGs, aside perhaps from Djinni.

Dark Souls 3 was confirmed... This is good, very good. Because Miyazaki is directing it this time.

www.darksouls.jp

Yeah, nothing from EA has impressed me lately. It has just been a bunch of disappointment. Mass Effect 3 (along with 2) has confirmed Bioware's writers inability to write, and Battleftront seems to be very very lacking in terms of content.

I'll be waiting for the PC gaming conference for anything interesting.

The Bloodborne OST is fantastic.

I still need to play the original Xenoblade, and Xenogears, for that matter.

@Fox

I really don't think that virtual reality will fit in the scope of this project. It's cool, yeah, but it just doesn't fit the genre, nor will it even add to the experience in a meaningful way, imo. We'd have to completely change the game from the ground up, and I think that we'd be doing the same thing Camelot did with Dark Dawn in the end, except far worse.

@OpenGoldenSun

Okay, fair enough, I'll check that out.