Теоретические подходы: Рассмотрены различные теории монструозности, от возвышенного до сдержанного монстра, а также концепция "абджекта" Юлии Кристевой.
Историческое развитие: Анализируется эволюция монстров в играх, начиная с классических антагонистов до современных сложных и многогранных существ.
Монстрореализм: Понятие "монстрореализма" как особой формы визуальности, заимствованной из природы и других медиа.
Современные тенденции: Новые тренды в отношении к монстрам, включая проявление симпатии, бесформенность и бестелесность монстров.
Интересные примеры: Примеры игр, которые подрывают традиционную модель "игрок против окружения", такие как "Shadow of the Colossus" и "Undertale".
Теоретические подходы: Рассмотрены различные теории монструозности, от возвышенного до сдержанного монстра, а также концепция "абджекта" Юлии Кристевой.
Историческое развитие: Анализируется эволюция монстров в играх, начиная с классических антагонистов до современных сложных и многогранных существ.
Монстрореализм: Понятие "монстрореализма" как особой формы визуальности, заимствованной...
> "If I understand correctly, what you are arguing for is a passive freedom, which is the absence of obligations; I am arguing for a positive freedom, which is the guarantee of rights."
> Most succinct rebuttal I've come up with yet to those who view permissive licenses as more free than copyleft
Most of you know me here for my AI stuff, but I have also been drawing most of my life. I wasn't the best of artists but I enjoyed what I made just as I enjoy AI art, which I am still not the best at but that's ok because I enjoy it all the same. Express your creativity however you want :)
A nice compact explanation for permissive vs. copyleft licensing I found:
Both models provide freedom and protection at the expense of the developer; Permissive model provides more freedom and protection for your *immediate downstream user* at the expense of the end user; Copyleft model provides more freedom and protection for your *end user* at the expense of the intermediate users.
It's pretty context-dependent which way you wanna go, but personally, in a toss-up, I'm gonna side with the end user. Because that's what actually matters in the end: the ability to actually use the software freely.
At the end of the day, if I have to use a proprietary, locked-down system that spies on me, doesn't let me modify it, or even look at its insides, and generally treats me, the user, like crap, it doesn't make a nick of difference to me that it has a BSD kernel inside, or MIT-licensed coreutils, right?
A nice compact explanation for permissive vs. copyleft licensing I found:
Both models provide freedom and protection at the expense of the developer; Permissive model provides more freedom and protection for your *immediate downstream user* at the expense of the end user; Copyleft model provides more freedom and protection for your *end user* at the expense of the intermediate users.
It's a nice project, I quite like it. But the license choice kinda irks me.
The author states that its goal is not to fight the GNU project. While that might not be the intention, in my opinion, this is actually one third of the way to the EEE scenario.
MIT license means it's easy for corporations who choose to make proprietary software to adopt it for their projects. So the "Embrace" step is basically done, voluntarily.
The next step is to Extend it, to make it on par or better than GNU Coreutils. Which has not been achieved yet, but this is the goal.
If this has the potential to be better than GNU coreutils (and it does, being written in a more modern language, and by that virtue having more potential for modernization), then why use GNU coreutils at all? That will be the Extinguish part.
It's a nice project, I quite like it. But the license choice kinda irks me.
The author states that its goal is not to fight the GNU project. While that might not be the intention, in my opinion, this is actually one third of the way to the EEE scenario.
> "If I understand correctly, what you are arguing for is a passive freedom, which is the absence of obligations; I am arguing for a positive freedom, which is the guarantee of rights."
> Most succinct rebuttal I've come up with yet to those who view permissive licenses as more free than copyleft
I downloaded a program for macOS. The OS absolutely refuses to let me run it, falsely claiming that it's "damaged." It is not damaged, Apple just cares more about extracting profit from developer licenses and collecting data through App Store downloads.
There's a dark pattern where you can right click and select "Open," which behaves differently than double-clicking the same thing. This does not work for this program.
I had to run: `xattr -d com.apple.quarantine /Applications/ProgramName.app` to make it work.
Despicable, hostile, anti-user, anti-competitive behavior from Apple.
I downloaded a program for macOS. The OS absolutely refuses to let me run it, falsely claiming that it's "damaged." It is not damaged, Apple just cares more about extracting profit from developer licenses and collecting data through App Store downloads.
There's a dark pattern where you can right click and select "Open," which behaves differently than double-clicking the same thing. This does not work for this program.
Today, thousands of anti-fascists assembled around the UK to face down racist rallies. Most of the rallies never materialized.
Whenever fascists strike a blow, if we respond quickly and boldly, it offers an opportunity to draw more people into the struggle against capitalism, white supremacy, and the state. We must not let anyone imagine that the police will deal with fascists for us—on the contrary, they are a much greater threat to freedom than any group of ordinary racists.
Today, thousands of anti-fascists assembled around the UK to face down racist rallies. Most of the rallies never materialized.
Whenever fascists strike a blow, if we respond quickly and boldly, it offers an opportunity to draw more people into the struggle against capitalism, white supremacy, and the state. We must not let anyone imagine that the police will deal with fascists for us—on the contrary, they are a much greater threat to freedom than any group of ordinary racists.
A nice compact explanation for permissive vs. copyleft licensing I found:
Both models provide freedom and protection at the expense of the developer; Permissive model provides more freedom and protection for your *immediate downstream user* at the expense of the end user; Copyleft model provides more freedom and protection for your *end user* at the expense of the intermediate users.
It's pretty context-dependent which way you wanna go, but personally, in a toss-up, I'm gonna side with the end user. Because that's what actually matters in the end: the ability to actually use the software freely.
At the end of the day, if I have to use a proprietary, locked-down system that spies on me, doesn't let me modify it, or even look at its insides, and generally treats me, the user, like crap, it doesn't make a nick of difference to me that it has a BSD kernel inside, or MIT-licensed coreutils, right?
A nice compact explanation for permissive vs. copyleft licensing I found:
Both models provide freedom and protection at the expense of the developer; Permissive model provides more freedom and protection for your *immediate downstream user* at the expense of the end user; Copyleft model provides more freedom and protection for your *end user* at the expense of the intermediate users.
It's a nice project, I quite like it. But the license choice kinda irks me.
The author states that its goal is not to fight the GNU project. While that might not be the intention, in my opinion, this is actually one third of the way to the EEE scenario.
MIT license means it's easy for corporations who choose to make proprietary software to adopt it for their projects. So the "Embrace" step is basically done, voluntarily.
The next step is to Extend it, to make it on par or better than GNU Coreutils. Which has not been achieved yet, but this is the goal.
If this has the potential to be better than GNU coreutils (and it does, being written in a more modern language, and by that virtue having more potential for modernization), then why use GNU coreutils at all? That will be the Extinguish part.
It's a nice project, I quite like it. But the license choice kinda irks me.
The author states that its goal is not to fight the GNU project. While that might not be the intention, in my opinion, this is actually one third of the way to the EEE scenario.
> "If I understand correctly, what you are arguing for is a passive freedom, which is the absence of obligations; I am arguing for a positive freedom, which is the guarantee of rights."
> Most succinct rebuttal I've come up with yet to those who view permissive licenses as more free than copyleft
It kinda feels like we are at an impossible to task to "make things more fair", politicians are throwing things up like "tax cuts" that only benefit the ultra rich, like always, talk about "tips" and how that should not be taxes?
The solution is quite fcking simple:
- INCREASE THE MINIMUM WAGE ⚠️ - TAX THE RICH (SO MUUCH)⚠️
THAT is how we make things more fair in the economy and not with bullshit laws that are only made for the wealthy!
Again, what do I know. I'm only human no politician
It kinda feels like we are at an impossible to task to "make things more fair", politicians are throwing things up like "tax cuts" that only benefit the ultra rich, like always, talk about "tips" and how that should not be taxes?
The solution is quite fcking simple:
- INCREASE THE MINIMUM WAGE ⚠️ - TAX THE RICH (SO MUUCH)⚠️
@stux The point of 50’s-era 90% marginal tax rates was to incent companies to invest money into their businesses. These investments were tax-deductible, thereby reducing taxes while providing a benefit to society. Merely reducing the marginal tax rate allows business and the wealthy to just hold the wealth, without producing any benefit to society. We should create a separate, higher rate structure for those who choose to leave the US while keeping all the benefits of being here.
They produce drained aquifers. They produce land subsidence. They produce empty wells for farmers. They produce higher water-rates and usage-restrictions for other customers within a water-region.
He described, in broad strokes, basically everything you need to know to get started with political economy, and described how corporate state corruption works.
IN A GAME REVIEW.
Granted, it's "this" kind of a game, but still.
There's also his Adpocalypse-era video about demonetization that's still hugely relevant:
Gregory's Server
@libreleah@mas.to Oh the joys of self employment :ajsmug: