🔥 Popular | Latest

Save
Fail, Fire, and Life: Teacher: You have to make an innocent computer game! Me: Hose/lose from zach gage loselose is a game about choice and consequence, and b what it means to sucoeed or fail You play the role of a space captain on a seemingly endless quest to dectroy aftacking aliens. You receive one point for each alien you kil You have one life, and if an allen touches you, you ill esplode. Tyou manage to kil al of the stera without dying, you wil win th game Authough loselose is a video-game, everything that happens whl while you play is rea Each aien is procedurally generated out of a Sie on your computer. When you kill an alen, the fie it was created from is destroyed On the other hand, if you are kiled, the applcation itat wil be di stroyed 00:54 Lose/Lose is a video-game with real life consequences. Each alien in the game is created based on a random file on the players computer. If the player kills the alien, the file it is based on is deleted. If the players ship is destroyed, the application itself is deleted Although touching aliens will cause the player to lose the game, and killing aliens awards points, the aliens will never actually fire at the player. This calls into question the player's mission, which is never explicitly stated, only hinted at through classic game mechanics. Is the player supposed to be an aggressor? Or merely an observer, traversing through a dangerous land? Why do we assume that because we are given a weapon an awarded for using it, that doing so is right? By way of exploring what it means to kill in a video-game, Lose/Lose broaches bigger questions. As technology grows, our understanding of it diminishes, yet, at the same time, it becomes increasingly important in our lives. At what point does our virtual data become as important to us as physical possessions? If we have reached that point already, what real objects do we value less than our data? What implications does trusting something so important to something we maderoviad menetichave? AH YES. MY FAVOURITE FRIENDLY COMPUTER GAME

AH YES. MY FAVOURITE FRIENDLY COMPUTER GAME

Save
Being Alone, America, and Click: Jason Fuller, Contributor Working to bring about the best in America, both on-line and off. Impeachment Is No Longer Enough; Donald Trump Must Face Justice Impeachment and removal from office are only the first steps; for treason and-if convicted in a court of law-executed. 06/11/2017 10:39 pm ET for America to be redeemed, Donald Trump must be prosecuted Donald Trump has been President of the United States for just shy of six months now. I think that most of us among the electorate knew that his presidency would be a relative disaster, but I am not sure how many among us expected the catastrophe our nation now faces. friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: hominishostilis: abstractandedgyname: siryouarebeingmocked: mississpithy: bogleech: notyourmoderate: angrybell: thinksquad: http://archive.is/5VvI5 Huffpo, everybody. Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies? God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves. “ His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. “ I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research? And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it. So this: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Is a question of this: Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”. Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? (The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.) Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets… Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality. The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place. This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing. The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it. It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”. You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird. Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP Delicious This was quite a ride
Save
Birthday, Facts, and Joker: 15-3901 1:05 5 Img:14 SP:11.91 PPHFS Mat 256 x 192 ps.zo PE-64 PPNES Nat 320x 240 MP Caters News Agency 17am A boy born with just two percent of his brain has defied doctors' predictions after his brain grew back to 80 percent of the average size. Doctors had told the parents to terminate pregnancy not once but five times. @factsweird Photo courtesy of Caters News Agency greater-than-the-sword: recoveringvictorian: mccarthyites: mindblowingfactz: A boy born with just two percent of his brain has defied doctors’ predictions after his brain grew back to 80 percent of the average size. Doctors had told the parents to terminate pregnancy not once but five times. I saw this before some time ago and it just absolutely fascinated me because there was never any other information provided and the little info that was given was tantalizingly vague. Even with 80% of his brain growing surely he had all kinds of severe issues, right? And even if his brain did grow back he might not have lived very long. So I did a little research on him. Everything happened exactly like it says in the pic- the parents were strongly urged to abort the baby five separate times, and they refused all five times, and he was born with two percent of his brain and he does now have 80% of it. What the blurb doesn’t say is that the little boy’s name is Noah Wall and he’s now a very happy, healthy, six year old boy. Doctors said he would be SEVERELY mentally disabled, unable to see, hear, talk, or even eat. The doctors were wrong. He can do all of these things and more. By age two he was sitting up straight and singing; he can play with legos and computer games, he’s learned how to count, he can hold perfectly normal conversations, and he loves painting. He just recently wrote his name for the first time, and he’s trying very hard to learn how to walk (but that’s still a long way off because he’s mostly paralyzed from the waist down). Most of this probably just seems like boring normalcy, but considering he was born with only 2% of his brain he shouldn’t be able to do ANY of this. The fact that he lived beyond his first birthday is a miracle in and of itself. Noah hasn’t had a brain scan since he was three years old, so no one knows if his brain has grown more since then, but all indications are that he’s developing physically at a normal rate, and he’s developing well enough mentally that his parents recently enrolled him in a local elementary school- not any special education classes, a normal, mainstream school. It’s hard work for the parents, there’s tons of medical appointments, regular surgeries with lengthy recovery times, they had to shuttle Noah to a neurophysics center in Australia to help him learn how to sit upright. But they both agree he’s worth it. This is what his mom Shelly has to say:  “I thank him every night before he goes to bed. I say ‘Noah, thank you for such a lovely day. I’ve loved my day.’ And he’ll say ‘I love you, Mummy. Night night.’” https://nypost.com/2019/02/20/boy-born-without-brain-defies-odds-to-live/ https://www.theepochtimes.com/boy-born-with-2-percent-of-brain-defies-odds-learns-to-count-and-surf_2810231.html https://www.cbc.ca/passionateeye/features/the-boy-born-without-a-brain-is-now-a-practical-joker-who-loves-playing-mar I saw a video on him and his parents awhile back and it’s such a happy story. ^^ Just another invalid deformed beyond hope and destined to be a vegetable who should have been killed in the womb, amirite? This really speaks to cases where people think that killing a baby is “the right thing to do” because of probabilities and likelihoods.

greater-than-the-sword: recoveringvictorian: mccarthyites: mindblowingfactz: A boy born with just two percent of his brain has defied doc...

Save
Life, Love, and Game: If anyone is going to go a single life love itself is such a game I’m down with you

If anyone is going to go a single life love itself is such a game I’m down with you

Save
Drinking, Iphone, and Money: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez @AOC He can stay, he can go. He can be impeached, or voted out in 2020 But removing Trump will not remove the infrastructure of an entire party that embraced him; the dark money that funded him; the online radicalization that drummed his army; nor the racism he amplitied +reanimated 11:00 AM 3/24/19 Twitter for iPhone sliceosunshine: drinking-tea-at-midnight: typhlonectes: AOC. sure, but not having him front and center will hurt a lot of this and at the very least stop him from making things worse and allow us to actively work towards improving things. This almost kinda feels like “getting rid of the cancer won’t solve the environment that allowed the cancer to happen in the first place.” I can get how that tweet feels like that! Especially since it’s on its own here, pulled out of its original context. Originally, it was part 2/3 in response to this tweet: So in response to the question “How did a guy like this get elected?” (and the implied “How do we prevent someone like this being elected again?”) The representative said this: (x) I can understand why OP pulled the one tweet that they did, since it is, by itself, a good insight that received more attention than even the start of the thread. But it’s getting a “diagnosis” without the proposed “solution” which can make it seem like a hollow insight 

sliceosunshine: drinking-tea-at-midnight: typhlonectes: AOC. sure, but not having him front and center will hurt a lot of this and at the v...

Save