Tootfinder

Opt-in global Mastodon full text search. Join the index!

@tiotasram@kolektiva.social
2025-08-19 05:08:29

Just finished Transiruby, along with a 9k-line journal file for it. I almost got 100, but not quite; I don't have time to go back to it before the semester starts though.
If you like exploration games, it's an excellent one, with great level design & tons of secrets. It actually makes you do significant secret-finding and map-reading in order to beat the game, not just for extras or a special ending, which is something that a lot of metroidvania games since Super Metroid don't do. My one complaint is that the map system isn't perfect, and finding obscure secrets to progress is fine when the map hints at them but much less fun when it hints incorrectly (I looked one progress item up in a speedrun video because of this).
Decently cool movement mechanics, although the combat does take a back seat and almost all of the bosses are easy (I beat the final two bosses in the third and second tries respectively). I don't think that's any better or worse than a game like Nine Sols where the final boss took me hundreds of tries though; just a different flavor. The world-building isn't as rich as the more epic metroidvanias like Hollow Knight or Lone Fungus (or again, Nine Sols) but again I'm fine with that. It's just a more casual game that has really excellent level design & exploration poetics.
#AmPlaying

@ErikJonker@mastodon.social
2025-08-16 08:56:46

We have to fight with everything we have against the awful "Chat Control" proposal. It is very easy to explain why it is a very bad idea but because the subject is child abuse, everybody loses rational thinking capabilities it seems. patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/cha

@tinoeberl@mastodon.online
2025-08-15 18:20:37

State of the Climate in 2024 ist erschienen.
2024 war das wärmste Jahr seit Beginn der Aufzeichnungen. Die #CO2-Konzentration stieg auf 422,8 ppm – 52 % über dem vorindustriellen Niveau.
Extreme #Wetterlagen nahmen zu: schwere Überschwemmungen in

Donald Trump’s march towards authoritarianism is so steady,
taking another step or two every day,
that it’s easy to become inured to it:
you can’t be in a state of shock permanently.
And, besides, sober-minded people are wary of sounding hyperbolic or hysterical:
their instinct is to play down rather than scream at the top of their voice.
There’s something else, too.
Trump’s dictatorial behaviour is so brazen, so blatant, that paradoxically,

@tiotasram@kolektiva.social
2025-09-13 23:43:29

TL;DR: what if nationalism, not anarchy, is futile?
Since I had the pleasure of seeing the "what would anarchists do against a warlord?" argument again in my timeline, I'll present again my extremely simple proposed solution:
Convince the followers of the warlord that they're better off joining you in freedom, then kill or exile the warlord once they're alone or vastly outnumbered.
Remember that even in our own historical moment where nothing close to large-scale free society has existed in living memory, the warlord's promise of "help me oppress others and you'll be richly rewarded" is a lie that many understand is historically a bad bet. Many, many people currently take that bet, for a variety of reasons, and they're enough to coerce through fear an even larger number of others. But although we imagine, just as the medieval peasants might have imagined of monarchy, that such a structure is both the natural order of things and much too strong to possibly fail, in reality it takes an enormous amount of energy, coordination, and luck for these structures to persist! Nations crumble every day, and none has survived more than a couple *hundred* years, compared to pre-nation societies which persisted for *tends of thousands of years* if not more. I'm this bubbling froth of hierarchies, the notion that hierarchy is inevitable is certainly popular, but since there's clearly a bit of an ulterior motive to make (and teach) that claim, I'm not sure we should trust it.
So what I believe could form the preconditions for future anarchist societies to avoid the "warlord problem" is merely: a widespread common sense belief that letting anyone else have authority over you is morally suspect. Given such a belief, a warlord will have a hard time building any following at all, and their opponents will have an easy time getting their supporters to defect. In fact, we're already partway there, relative to the situation a couple hundred years ago. At that time, someone could claim "you need to obey my orders and fight and die for me because the Queen was my mother" and that was actually a quite successful strategy. Nowadays, this strategy is only still working in a few isolated places, and the idea that one could *start a new monarchy* or even resurrect a defunct one seems absurd. So why can't that same transformation from "this is just how the world works" to "haha, how did anyone ever believe *that*? also happen to nationalism in general? I don't see an obvious reason why not.
Now I think one popular counterargument to this is: if you think non-state societies can win out with these tactics, why didn't they work for American tribes in the face of the European colonizers? (Or insert your favorite example of colonialism here.) I think I can imagine a variety of reasons, from the fact that many of those societies didn't try this tactic (and/or were hierarchical themselves), to the impacts of disease weakening those societies pre-contact, to the fact that with much-greater communication and education possibilities it might work better now, to the fact that most of those tribes are *still* around, and a future in which they persist longer than the colonist ideologies actually seems likely to me, despite the fact that so much cultural destruction has taken place. In fact, if the modern day descendants of the colonized tribes sow the seeds of a future society free of colonialism, that's the ultimate demonstration of the futility of hierarchical domination (I just read "Theory of Water" by Leanne Betasamosake Simpson).
I guess the TL;DR on this is: what if nationalism is actually as futile as monarchy, and we're just unfortunately living in the brief period during which it is ascendant?

@blakes7bot@mas.torpidity.net
2025-09-07 18:39:05

Series A, Episode 01 - The Way Back
[JENNA looks through the bars at the prisoner, then walks back through the holding cell. BLAKE is asleep on a single bed. Someone is stealing his watch while he sleeps. It is VILA. VILA attempts to steal something from BLAKE'S pocket. BLAKE wakes up and pushes VILA to the floor.]
VILA: Easy! Take it easy! I hate personal violence, especially when I'm the person.

Claude 3.7 describes the image as: "This image appears to be from a science fiction television series, showing two people in what looks like a spacecraft or space station interior. The scene takes place in what appears to be living quarters with minimalist bunks or beds visible with metal frames.

One person is wearing a brown leather-type jacket and appears to be reaching out with their hand in a friendly or conversational gesture while sitting or leaning on one of the bunks. They have short d…
@deepthoughts10@infosec.exchange
2025-07-09 13:10:50

Do you invest in #crypto or are you a public figure? You should take action to prevent a SIM swap attack. #cybersecurity
From: @…

@pgcd@mastodon.online
2025-06-25 13:41:32

I need to come clean: I want a new Casio. Not anothe F91-W because it doesn't have multiple alarms and I'm old and I need to take pills multiple times per day, but still in the sub-40€ range.
How do I solve this? EASY! I'll get it *when I see it in a shop*.
Which, conveniently, means I'll never do, but I don't have to deny myself the thing itself.

@tiotasram@kolektiva.social
2025-07-28 13:04:34

How popular media gets love wrong
Okay, so what exactly are the details of the "engineered" model of love from my previous post? I'll try to summarize my thoughts and the experiences they're built on.
1. "Love" can be be thought of like a mechanism that's built by two (or more) people. In this case, no single person can build the thing alone, to work it needs contributions from multiple people (I suppose self-love might be an exception to that). In any case, the builders can intentionally choose how they build (and maintain) the mechanism, they can build it differently to suit their particular needs/wants, and they will need to maintain and repair it over time to keep it running. It may need winding, or fuel, or charging plus oil changes and bolt-tightening, etc.
2. Any two (or more) people can choose to start building love between them at any time. No need to "find your soulmate" or "wait for the right person." Now the caveat is that the mechanism is difficult to build and requires lots of cooperation, so there might indeed be "wrong people" to try to build love with. People in general might experience more failures than successes. The key component is slowly-escalating shared commitment to the project, which is negotiated between the partners so that neither one feels like they've been left to do all the work themselves. Since it's a big scary project though, it's very easy to decide it's too hard and give up, and so the builders need to encourage each other and pace themselves. The project can only succeed if there's mutual commitment, and that will certainly require compromise (sometimes even sacrifice, though not always). If the mechanism works well, the benefits (companionship; encouragement; praise; loving sex; hugs; etc.) will be well worth the compromises you make to build it, but this isn't always the case.
3. The mechanism is prone to falling apart if not maintained. In my view, the "fire" and "appeal" models of love don't adequately convey the need for this maintenance and lead to a lot of under-maintained relationships many of which fall apart. You'll need to do things together that make you happy, do things that make your partner happy (in some cases even if they annoy you, but never in a transactional or box-checking way), spend time with shared attention, spend time alone and/or apart, reassure each other through words (or deeds) of mutual beliefs (especially your continued commitment to the relationship), do things that comfort and/or excite each other physically (anywhere from hugs to hand-holding to sex) and probably other things I'm not thinking of. Not *every* relationship needs *all* of these maintenance techniques, but I think most will need most. Note especially that patriarchy teaches men that they don't need to bother with any of this, which harms primarily their romantic partners but secondarily them as their relationships fail due to their own (cultivated-by-patriarchy) incompetence. If a relationship evolves to a point where one person is doing all the maintenance (& improvement) work, it's been bent into a shape that no longer really qualifies as "love" in my book, and that's super unhealthy.
4. The key things to negotiate when trying to build a new love are first, how to work together in the first place, and how to be comfortable around each others' habits (or how to change those habits). Second, what level of commitment you have right now, and what how/when you want to increase that commitment. Additionally, I think it's worth checking in about what you're each putting into and getting out of the relationship, to ensure that it continues to be positive for all participants. To build a successful relationship, you need to be able to incrementally increase the level of commitment to one that you're both comfortable staying at long-term, while ensuring that for both partners, the relationship is both a net benefit and has manageable costs (those two things are not the same). Obviously it's not easy to actually have conversations about these things (congratulations if you can just talk about this stuff) because there's a huge fear of hearing an answer that you don't want to hear. I think the range of discouraging answers which actually spell doom for a relationship is smaller than people think and there's usually a reasonable "shoulder" you can fall into where things aren't on a good trajectory but could be brought back into one, but even so these conversations are scary. Still, I think only having honest conversations about these things when you're angry at each other is not a good plan. You can also try to communicate some of these things via non-conversational means, if that feels safer, and at least being aware that these are the objectives you're pursuing is probably helpful.
I'll post two more replies here about my own experiences that led me to this mental model and trying to distill this into advice, although it will take me a moment to get to those.
#relationships #love

@azonenberg@ioc.exchange
2025-06-24 21:58:14

Once again complaining about the state of transit in my area.
I need to catch an early morning flight for work.
I'm traveling, so not taking my bike (there's no easy way to fly with it). I'm definitely not going to take the car and pay for long-term parking. Uber put ~all of the local taxi companies out of business (as I discovered when I tried calling them and found one after another had their number disconnected). The bus I take to work picks up over a mile from my …

@atthenius@fediscience.org
2025-06-23 13:15:12

Spent my nervous energy preparing for the #nyc #heatwave making myself a wool coozie for my tall cans.
Check on your friends, family, and neighbors.
Designate a cool room in your home — no need to cool the whole house with a/c. Draw your shades/blinds.
Take it easy outside. Have a non electric plan for cooling down (cool shower/pool/ spray cap in a park or hydrant— fans — cool drink).
finder.nyc.gov/coolingcenters/

@radioeinsmusicbot@mastodonapp.uk
2025-07-25 14:27:50

🇺🇦 Auf radioeins läuft...
Eagles:
🎵 Take It Easy
#NowPlaying #Eagles
#radioeins gespielten Titel als #Spotify Playliste: open.spotify.com/playlist/3hdH