• 1 Post
  • 142 Comments
Joined 5 months ago
cake
Cake day: January 14th, 2025

help-circle

    1. consoles have mods these days, though they do need developer support

    2. not everyone cares about mods, I’d go out on a limb and say most pc players don’t use mods

    3. this new Xbox thing is not an OS, it’s an app. The device still has full windows in there and it is accessible. But when you’re using the Xbox app windows suspends many of its functions.

    The next Xbox will simply be a prebuilt PC and it won’t be subsidized (or it will be subsidized less) so expect a $700-$900 price tag for the Series X, and a $500 for the Series S. It wouldn’t make sense any other way. Steam et all will be usable, as it is usable in the Xbox Ally as well.

    Now tell me what would you rather buy? The PS5, which is absurdly locked down (even more so than the current Xbox when it comes to mods)? Deal with the gpu market shenanigans? Or buy the prebuilt Xbox PC that lets you play all your Steam games as well?

    It’s fucking genius.


  • I mean my problem is that they didn’t learn from Fallout 4 and furthermore they went and doubled down on it in the worst ways possible. Radiant quests on FO4 were kinda lame, but at least I can say that they sent you into unique dungeons. In Starfield no only are the quests repeated but also the locations. It’s a huge step back.

    On the positive end though I do have to say that the Faction quest for the Federation (I don’t remember the name) is one of the best quests lines Bethesda has written hands down. It felt like it could have been the main quest all by itself.


  • Wait until you realize that there’s like 5 dungeons and they are literally copy pasted all over the galaxy. Not like Oblivion were the rooms were copy pasted but had different mobs in it etc. These are literally the same dungeons, some of them even have a little narrative told through terminals, and not even that changes.

    I used to be a Bethesda fan and a huge Todd apologist, but he’s literally out of touch with what made his games good for the core audience and instead panders to the audience who buys games based on the laundry list of features they never get to see because they don’t finish or play games after the hype is dead one week later.

    It’s a shame because they actually got a lot of things right like going back to the TES conversation style, and having actual builds and the ship building which is pretty cool.

    My last hope is that they actually learn the lesson with this game and stop this bullshit they’ve been trying to pull of since Arena of having endless content.


  • I gave the only instance in which piracy is permissible in the comment you replied to. When there are arbitrary restrictions on how and where you can consume the content that you purchased. But a purchased must have had happened, because that’s what entitles you to access to the content. That’s literally the only instance in which piracy is valid. I’ve seen all the other arguments and they really don’t hold up to any kind of scrutiny because games, movies and books are not necessities and you are not entitled to access to anyone’s work while everyone is entitled to price their work however they like. If you want access to the content you pay what the gatekeeper is asking for, and if the content is not good enough for you to pay for it then surely it isn’t good enough for you to spend the most valuable resource that you have on it which is time.



  • Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.workstoAsk Lemmy@lemmy.world[Deleted]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    Sure, like 5 hours a week total. But that’s also because I choose to use my free time on other things like staying fit, cooking, reading and writing, if I didn’t i could possibly blay like 12 a week or a little bit more.

    I don’t have kids though, and I’m a freelancer so no commute.


  • That’s the thing you haven’t proven anything, in fact you haven’t given a single argument in favor hat psychology is science. The only thing you said is that psychology is a science because it uses statistical method and the scientific method but that does not make it a science.

    There’s too many things to read and too little time to read them so I would appreciate at least you trying to make an argument in your favor, by the time I get to read what you want me to I will forget this argument entirely.


  • It doesn’t offend me because I don’t think it’s true. I don’t need to play baseball to know that they guys playing basketball saying it’s baseball are not actually playing baseball. I can observe for myself the difference in the game. Similarly I can observe that psychology fails time and time again to produce objective knowledge which is the intention of all science. You have failed to refute this point and instead try to wave it away by saying:

    • I’m not qualified enough to know what science is (ad hominem)
    • directing me to read an entire field of philosophy that for all I know has its entire existence bent towards proving that the social sciences are sciences exactly in the same way that natural sciences are. (Also reeks of ad hominem but maybe I’m not qualified to make that judgement here either)

    If you can refute how psychology can be a science without producing any objective knowledge maybe I’ll read any works of the philosophy of science that you think will further convince me. I’m currently reading Kant so it’s somewhat adjacent anyways.


  • Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.workstomemes@lemmy.worldSome things don't change
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    Pretending that social sciences are science in the same vein as the natural sciences is academic insecurity. The validity of your field does not hinge on it producing objective knowledge but rather on whether it is useful or not. I’d say psychology is useful, and that alone makes it a valid field but it does not produce objective knowledge consistently so it is not a scientific field. Using the scientific method or math to conduct experiments does not make it a science especially when your data points come from self reported surveys or can be manipulated with sampling methods or even simple unconscious bias. Now do the natural sciences suffer from this too? Yes, but to a much lesser degree and as the methods and tools have become more refined so does the science become more certain and the knowledge produced more objective. Their primitive stages are not different from the state in which psychology exists in the present, but I would not have considered them science then just like i do not consider psychology a science now.

    When the basis of psychology becomes rooted in the biology of humans and the the chemical processes that give embodiment to our consciousness, maybe it will become scientific. And also when a mind reading machine is invented because I believe that’s really the breakthrough that psychology needs in order to make reproducible experiments, self reporting is simply not reliable.


  • I have a degree, but not in science. Does that make me unqualified to state that the field of psychology, and most other social sciences lack the epistemic rigor of something like physics or biology and therefore are not real sciences?

    I’ll repeat it, psychology is a science in much the same way that medieval medicine was a science. It may one day become an actual science much like medieval medicine became a science.

    What is your field?


  • Various meta analysis have found that the results of 50%+ of all studies in the field are non reproducible. It could be as high as 70%+.

    Again this does not mean that it isn’t a valid field of knowledge, it just not a science yet. People somehow take offense at this because I guess they feel like I’m invalidating the field. I actually only invalidating the validity of their findings so far which is more like a “sorry, try again until you find the fundamental rules of your field”. There’s also this pervasive attitude that all fields must be a science in order to be valuable which is just not true.

    The term “social science” reeks of insecurity to me because other than using the scientific method, they are not a sciences at all, but I guess academics needed a way to to defend themselves from the bullying physicists.

    My personal opinion is that psychology ignores biology too much, and insists on humans as purely socially constructed beings. If they started looking more at how our biology is the fundamental mold for our psychology, they might start making real progress towards being a science. But then maybe it wouldn’t be psychology anymore.