Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    + friends - friends
    21,522 link karma
    56,220 comment karma
    send message redditor for

    [–] Discussion Thread Friendly_Fire 1 points ago in neoliberal

    Call it a "universal basic income" instead.

    [–] [Capitalists] Venus is uninhabitable, we shouldn't be trying to turn earth into Venus Friendly_Fire 1 points ago in CapitalismVSocialism

    Are post-industrial capitalist countries not continuing to lower their impact? More and more alternative energy sources are being included in our power grids. Less and less pollution produced.

    We used to be destroying our ozone, it's regrowing. California cities used to have smog issues, their skies are clear. There was an article today about Scotland getting 98% of it's power from renewables in October. It's only one small place, but the trend is global.

    It seems clear that capitalism is solving the issue, however, it may not be doing it fast enough. Especially with a few regions that are likely going to go through a similar industrialization process.

    We very well need more intervention to speed up the process. I support a carbon tax, for example. But capitalism is clearly moving in the right direction. In a few decades fossil fuels will likely be more expensive than renewables, which means under capitalism they will be abandoned in mass.

    [–] What's the verdict on Pharah rework? Friendly_Fire 26 points ago in Competitiveoverwatch

    Mei WAS very effective in the off-tank slot. Regardless of what you wanted to call her, she used to be way better substituting the off-tank out. With her as one of two DPS you often struggled to bring enough DPS to a fight, but she bought ample CC and space-creation to fill for a Zarya for instance.

    Now she's had her DPS aspects buffed in several ways, she can more reasonably fill a DPS slot.

    [–] Scotland will become the first country in the world to embed the teaching of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex rights in the school curriculum, in what campaigners have described as a historic moment Friendly_Fire 1 points ago * (lasted edited 3 days ago) in worldnews

    I'm curious, doesn't your explanation basically imply the idea of "a social construct of gender" as bunk?

    Not that there aren't social roles/norms/stereotypes attached to gender, obviously there are, but the idea that gender itself is a social construct rather than a physical/innate trait.

    [–] OW Dev talks to Surefour about Doomfist Nerfs Friendly_Fire 1 points ago in Competitiveoverwatch

    Because punch is easy to counter and thus most people don't get one shot with it very often.

    He has to charge it in medium range while giving a way an incredibly loud audio cue. So you always know it's coming. Literally anyone with any mobility/defensive ability can just use it to counter him. Which is most heroes.

    Even for heroes like Zen, the ability has a lot of positional play around. Move behind a wall during the charge, or farther away from it, or around a corner so there is open space where Doomfist will punch you. I've side stepped so the Doomfist still punches me but there's no wall-hit insta-kill countless times.

    The other combo is totally different. E in from a huge distance and you can instantly delete any 200 HP hero you hit. No charging up with audio to warn you. No restrictions on position to one shot someone. Hit = dead.

    [–] Mother of Thousand Oaks Victim: “I Don’t Want Prayers. I Don’t Want Thoughts. I Want Gun Control.” Friendly_Fire 1 points ago in politics

    Well guys, we restricted rights and saved no lives (homicide rate remained unchanged) but at least less people are killed specifically with guns! /s

    It's almost like this is exactly what I said in my original comment. Gun control without addressing the actual problems that cause violence doesn't do anything useful.

    [–] Mother of Thousand Oaks Victim: “I Don’t Want Prayers. I Don’t Want Thoughts. I Want Gun Control.” Friendly_Fire 4 points ago in politics

    I also highly doubt that the homicide rate didn’t drop by percentage of the population so I’m going to need you to supply a source to support your claim.

    Sure I'll google it for you. Your own country actually puts out really nice clean data on it, so it isn't hard to find:

    Homicide rate by population from 1990 to 2014

    Note how it didn't drop below the 1996 level until 2002. I think it's clear there would be no reason for a six year delay on the sweeping gun legislation's effects.

    Boy you on some dumb. We don’t have any mass shootings. People still gonna murder people, but the ability to MASS EXECUTE is completely taken away.

    Yeah a mass murder event could never happen modern Australia. It sure doesn't take 5 seconds in google to find examples...

    Also, mass shootings clearly are what the US needs to focus on. I mean they account for less than 1% of gun deaths, but we should prioritize our gun legislation to deal with them. The sub 1% is what is important! /s

    It's clear most people just buy into media narratives rather than looking at actual facts. Mass murders are still very rare in the US, and not unique to countries with guns. But since there is a narrative about "US shootings", that's what you hear about.

    [–] Mother of Thousand Oaks Victim: “I Don’t Want Prayers. I Don’t Want Thoughts. I Want Gun Control.” Friendly_Fire 2 points ago in politics

    Yes because no one can carry guns illegally. No shootings have happened where people can't carry weapons. Cops that are totally allowed to stop and search people for no reason will catch them. /s

    This is another feel-good suggestion that solves nothing beyond punishing law-abiding gun owners who aren't the problem.

    You could also recognize that many states in the US have higher gun ownership and lower homicide rates than most European countries. Guns do not cause violence, they are just one of many tools someone can use. Look at Australia, it's huge gun buyback in 1996, and the total non-effect it had on their homicide rate.

    [–] Why is anarcho capitalism appealing to so many people Friendly_Fire 1 points ago in CapitalismVSocialism

    (It's nice to discuss with people who have more extreme positions. Is interesting, though it's generally hard to do with socialist)

    Free markets (i.e. the absence of violence) are by far the most efficient and moral system that we have. We haven't gotten to the latter part yet as we were mostly producing practical stuff here. But to answer your question: Yes, I would pick the non-violent option over the violent one even if it meant society would be less wealthy.

    This is, I think, the core. We agree on a lot, I highly value freedom, but I think of a lot of my views as that of a "pragmatic" libertarian. Freedom is one of the most important things, but it isn't the only thing.

    The small hit on freedom that reasonable taxes bring is worth what they provide.

    But since you are advocating for the violent system of redistribution of wealth, I suppose the burden of proof is on you to show that this leads to more wealth overall.

    I mean, doesn't modern history show it? Every single developed first world country became that way under a system using taxes and redistribution of wealth. The key factors generally being education and infrastructure. Having these available to the public for "free" (i.e. taxes disproportionately paid for by the wealthy) means even poor people could be far more productive, improving the economy and national wealth greatly.

    You have to at least admit that all of the wealthiest countries, and generally best places to live, uses government violence. Why should anyone believe that an anarchist country would do better when one never has?

    I'm obviously not a fan of child abuse. But I don't think adding more violence to the equation is going to solve a problem of abuse. I think a better solution to the problem is to stop subsidising poor decision making (such as getting kids when you can't afford an education).

    This kind of opens up another good point on my side. Sure, you can grand-stand that you don't want to subsidize bad decisions. I've heard that from plenty of republicans. The issue people will make bad decisions anyway. You have to accept that this position means completely innocent children paying the price.

    [–] Mother of Thousand Oaks Victim: “I Don’t Want Prayers. I Don’t Want Thoughts. I Want Gun Control.” Friendly_Fire -3 points ago in politics

    Australia is my favorite example actually! Mandatory gun buy backs in 1996 after a mass shooting. Every gun control advocates dream. And their homicide rate didn't change! It took 6 years for it to trend below where it was in 1996. Don't believe me, google it yourself. Even when it did start trending down, it wasn't anything noteworthy. The US had a greater reduction of homicides at the same time with no gun control.

    So yes, look at other countries. And if you don't look at gun deaths but homicides, you see how pointless most gun control is. It doesn't matter if you reduce gun deaths if total homicides stayed the same. You simply restrict rights while saving no lives.

    [–] Can’t turn away for a second. Friendly_Fire 2 points ago in funny

    I feel like everyone is forgetting the other factor: the squared-cubed law. Smaller things (materials or creatures) are always "stronger" by their weight. Your muscles strength goes up roughly proportional to it's cross-sectional area, while it's weight goes up by it's volume. As you get bigger, it just gets harder to move your own body weight (or in this case, hold it up).

    [–] Discussion Thread Friendly_Fire 1 points ago in neoliberal

    Hot take: You shouldn't restrict the rights of everyone because a small minority will use that right to commit suicide.

    Honestly, what's a possible answer to suicide by gun besides mass banning guns in general?

    [–] Keep em guessing Friendly_Fire 2 points ago in WhitePeopleTwitter

    The first because it screws with your metabolism long term, (triggers fat storage)

    This is thoroughly disproven myth. The truth is healthy bodies always try to store excess calories as fat. Normal weight people aren't eating 3000 calories, but pooping out 1000 of them because their bodies haven't been "triggered" to store fat.

    Weight always comes down to CICO.

    Intermittent fasting helps because it's just harder to over-eat if you are eating less frequently. Also it forces you and your body to acclimate to burning fat for energy, as you'll do it every day.

    I don't know how far you have to go to make IF an unhealthy binge-starve behavior. One meal a day has been studied and is perfectly fine, at least.

    [–] Keep em guessing Friendly_Fire 3 points ago in WhitePeopleTwitter

    Nah, eating all the time is the best way to get fat. Intermittent fasting is basically binge-starve made into an intentional schedule and it's great for losing weight.

    [–] Keep em guessing Friendly_Fire 1 points ago in WhitePeopleTwitter

    IF and having diabetes have very little to do with each other

    I'm not so sure. Constantly eating constantly puts sugar into your blood, which means insulin is constantly sent to have your cells absorb it. Eventually cells become resistant to the insulin signals and stop, and boom you got type 2.

    I don't know if it's been demonstrated yet, but IF gives a clear potential pathway to helping with this. Giving a chance for your blood sugar to normalize for a long period of time, and your cells to not be inundated with insulin.

    [–] Pope: Safe drinking water is a human right, not merchandise Friendly_Fire 3 points ago in worldnews

    No one is stopping you from opening your mouth in a rain storm or going sip from a river. However, you don't have a "right" to have someone else bottle up clean water for you, or build pipes to pump it into your home.

    If a company is somehow blocking access of water to people, unless they pay them, that is a very different issue.

    [–] Pope: Safe drinking water is a human right, not merchandise Friendly_Fire 3 points ago in worldnews

    No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

    The right to a fair trail is still a negative right. The right is that you can't be tried without a lawyer. It's not a guarantee you will get a lawyer, it's a guarantee you won't be tried without one. There is no violation of your rights if a lawyer can't be found, you just aren't tried.

    Positive rights really don't make any sense. It's just nice-sounding political speak. People should just call them what they are, either privileges or services provided by the government.

    [–] Knowledge post: Why the idea of "monitor distance" matching zoom sensitivity is self-contradictory. Friendly_Fire 1 points ago in Competitiveoverwatch

    Yeah I think most of us aren't regularly using these terms and I got confused too at first, had to refresh to get my names of stuff straight. It also doesn't help OP is throwing out all sorts of terms incorrectly.

    [–] Knowledge post: Why the idea of "monitor distance" matching zoom sensitivity is self-contradictory. Friendly_Fire 3 points ago in Competitiveoverwatch

    Which means it's not using euler angles. Euler angles describe the orientation of a FRAME OF REFERENCE in space. This means the three vectors have to be ORTHOGONAL, aka 90 degrees apart.

    If your principle axis pitches up as you aim, and your "vertical" or "yaw" axis remains straight up in line with the game world, they are no longer 90 degrees apart. Which means they do not make an orthogonal basis, which means the entire concept of using Euler angles makes no sense whatsoever.

    And even separate from that, your statement still doesn't make sense. You are the one who said your "principle axis" is where you are looking. Even if your "yaw axis" as you say is affixed to the game world which you've called the "reference axis", your principle axis STILL moves relative to this reference when you look around. You continue to contradict yourself.

    The game uses spherical coordinates. Horizontal mouse movement is literally only mapped to "theta" or yaw around the world's vertical axis, and vertical mouse movement is only mapped to pitch down from the world's vertical axis. It's that simple. It's 1-1 mapping from the movement of your mouse (which returns horizontal and vertical movement as separate values) and movement in the coordinate system. Horizontal -> theta, vertical -> phi.

    [–] Knowledge post: Why the idea of "monitor distance" matching zoom sensitivity is self-contradictory. Friendly_Fire 4 points ago in Competitiveoverwatch

    your reference axes is affixed to the game world, not moving according to your principle axis.

    This statement makes no sense. How can the reference axes (i.e. the world's frame of reference) not move with respect to your principle axis (where you are looking)? Obviously the relative orientation between your character and the world changes whenever you are looking around.

    I ignored this incoherent sentence to try and provide a simple explanation, but we can hash this out if we have to.

    [–] Knowledge post: Why the idea of "monitor distance" matching zoom sensitivity is self-contradictory. Friendly_Fire 2 points ago * (lasted edited 4 days ago) in Competitiveoverwatch

    The fact that your characters coordinate system is locked with your FOV doesn't make rotations commutative. Seriously just click the game I linked to see what happens if you pitch/yaw in a system using Euler angles.

    To be fair, you could define characters with euler angles, but to get the behavior we see in game, simple pure vertical or horizontal movements of the mouse have to be mapped to rotation on multiple axes at once.

    In comparison, from a spherical coordinate system perspective, a horizontal mouse movement ONLY changes "theta", and vertical mouse movement only changes "phi". That's it.

    [–] Knowledge post: Why the idea of "monitor distance" matching zoom sensitivity is self-contradictory. Friendly_Fire 3 points ago in Competitiveoverwatch

    I think I've got the simplest example to show how this is wrong.

    If you go in game, point straight up, and move your mouse to the side, what happens? You rotate, but remain pointed in one direction, straight up. Exactly how it works in a spherical system. If you point straight up, changing what is usually refereed to as "theta" doesn't change where you are pointing.

    Now consider how degenerate this case is with Euler angles. Pointing at the horizon, sideways movement of your mouse rotates you about your vertical (Z) axis. If you point straight up, your Z axis now points at the horizon, and it's your X axis that is vertical. To get the behavior we see in game, horizontal mouse movement would have to be remapped from rotating around Z to rotating about your X axis! And for every pitch you inbetween, simple horizontal movement of your mouse would require a complicated rotation around multiple axes to get the effect we see in game.

    Again, in a spherical system, the mouse movements are just mapped directly: horizontal movement to theta, vertical movement to phi, and it never changes.

    [–] Knowledge post: Why the idea of "monitor distance" matching zoom sensitivity is self-contradictory. Friendly_Fire 5 points ago * (lasted edited 4 days ago) in Competitiveoverwatch

    I think you're confused by the fact that the reference frame does not change according to your principle axis. Rather the reference frame in FPS games' Euler angles is always directly vertical.

    Honestly I've started at this for a few minutes and I can't parse it. First, what are you calling the principle axis of your character? Second, the statement "the reference frame does not change according to your principle axis." is ambiguous. The reference frame in game is the world, and is of course static, and thus never changes. If you mean "change" as in relative orientation to your characters frame, then it would change with reference to ALL of your characters axes, if we are using euler angles.

    It is without a doubt that mouselook in FPS games are simply Euler angles with a locked Roll.

    This is so easy to demonstrate that it is not true. Let's walk through it very carefully. To define an euler frame for our in game character, let's go with normal conventions and say the X axis is where you are pointing, the Y axis is directly to your left, and the Z axis points directly above you.

    Now, with euler angles, if you pitch up this is a rotation about the Y axis. This means both your X and Z axes both move. If you pitch up 45 degrees, your X axis has rotated 45 degrees up from the horizon, and your Z axis has rotated 45 degrees down from vertical frame of reference. Now let's say we yaw 180 degrees, which is a rotation around our Z axis, which is at 45 degrees from the vertical frame of reference of the game world. This puts where we are pointing, our X axis, down in the game world, aiming below the horizon. Clearly not how any FPS game works, where rotating while pitched up leaves you pointing up.

    Try it in the game I linked yourself. You can never touch the roll commands, the equivalent of using euler angles with locked roll, but it doesn't matter. It's clearly a fundamentally different way to aim than the spherical coordinate systems FPS games use.

    You could describe the orientation of a character in Overwatch with Euler angels, but then as soon as you pitched from horizon, a simple horizontal move of your mouse would require complex rotations in all three axes. In a simple spherical system, it's just changed theta or "yaw", while leaving the "pitch" untouched.

    [–] Knowledge post: Why the idea of "monitor distance" matching zoom sensitivity is self-contradictory. Friendly_Fire 1 points ago * (lasted edited 4 days ago) in Competitiveoverwatch

    You're right, I messed up. The game uses a spherical coordinate system. The issue is OP isn't talking about spherical coordinates, but Euler angles (he even states this in his other comment to me). I got mixed up trying to express the difference.

    The point I failed to express properly still holds true. With Euler angles, rotations are not commutative. Also a pitch+yaw motion will also cause a "roll". Both of which are obviously not true for Overwatch.

    An example of Euler angles: Even without using the roll, it's clear how the system is fundamentally different.