The guy who heads that gave a fantastic Defcon talk showing it in action.

AFAIK, krita has had non-destructive editing for a while now (while gimp just got it with the 3.0 release).

The text tool is a pain point still, though thankfully a new from the ground up text tool over 6 years in the making is soon to be released for Krita this year, likely making it the most capable open-source option.

Also @ICastFist@programming.dev

Newer versions of Krita now come with G’mic built in, which add so many incredible tools, including a content aware fill that works incredibly well, and a really nice edge detecting cropping tool called foreground extract.

The video is about a retro game, it’s just that the retro game has content you don’t like and don’t want other people talking about.

Far as I can tell, it does that when the phone is running low on ram. At least, that’s when it does it to me.

I think the analogy holds up beautifully.

The man proceeds to tell the booth talkers that he’s taken great pains to avoid seeing or hearing politics in his daily life, such as quickly muting political ads on TV, requesting his neighbors take down their Trump flags and local candidate election signs in their yard, and taking backroads to avoid seeing a political billboard on the way to work, all in the effort to spare their eyes the misfortune of sliding across disgusting politics. So it’s perfectly reasonable that he demand to the booth talkers they cease their discussion immediately, and switch to a topic he approves of, he explains, confident in the knowledge that they will understand the pains he’s gone through.

The two people in the booth glance at each other uncomfortably, wondering what terrible fate brought this demanding and oddly entitled man to their booth. Finally, one of them flashes a half-grin and spreads their hands disarmingly “Hey man, I get it that you don’t like what we’re discussing, but if we give in to your request, wouldn’t that mean we’d have to give into any other request you have about topics? What if we were talking about sex amongst ourselves and that too wasn’t acceptable since you go to efforts to avoid that topic as well? I don’t think we want to live our lives beholden to your feelings on things, that’s for us to decide. Have a good day.”

Interesting, by your guidelines, there’s quite some limits on expressing oneself to appease people who can easily avoid and skip over a clearly labeled piece of content.

From my perspective, it’s as though someone came into a tavern and, fresh ale in hand, overheard a political discussion happening in a corner booth. Perhaps the subject was particularly distasteful to this theoretical tavern goer, and instead of ignoring it or moving to a seat where they can’t hear it, they instead march up to said booth and demand these booth talkers cease their discussion immediately, explaining that they come to the tavern to relax, not have these political ideas pop up everywhere they go.

I suspect the people in the booth would be quite bewildered as to why this theoretical person is going to such trouble to involve themselves in ceasing an activity they could so easily avoid.

Wanted to come back to this after getting about halfway through the book so far, as well as finishing What Is Politics’ series on the book (which, it turns out, only focus on the first 3 chapters). My conclusion is: they’re kinda both right.

As someone who has never looked into anthropology, Dawn of Everything showcases some incredibly valuable history that I likely wouldn’t have stumbled across by myself. The historic debate with Kandiaronk and his background in particular was exceptionally cool to read about, and the breadth of examples Graeber and Wengrow have to show all in one place is astounding.

What Is Politics’ critique, though, does have merit IMO. There are a fair amount of times Dawn of Everything either misquotes, misleads, or withholds relevant context of the hunter gatherer tribes and cultures they reference. As an example, David & Wengrow suggest that cultures which experience only seasonal hierarchy are proof that these ancient cultures experimented with different forms of structuring society, but they left out the parts of the studies they reference to make those claims that show those seasonal hierarchies are absolutely not a conscious choice, but one that is quite clearly something the people being dominated by the hierarchy tolerate only due to environmental circumstance.

As an example, Marcel Mauss’s study on the Eskimo: The Inuit experience somewhat egalitarian lives during the winter, and a more strict hierarchy during the summer where things become decidedly patriarchal, as the hunting men have full domination over their families. This is not out of choice by the women, but due to the seasonal change forcing their food supply (which concentrates in the winter) to disperse during the summer, leading individual families to venture out alone to continue to hunt game. This isolates women from their families which would normally act as a power equalizing effect against abusive or dominating husbands. The patriarchal domination does not appear to be a willing choice or experiment in any practical sense.

I also think it’s odd that they seem to be suggesting that personal choice is what ultimately caused these egalitarian outcomes, but then also mention materialist reasons for why a culture might’ve stayed egalitarian, such as their reference to one tribe’s use of a constantly shifting fertile river bank for agriculture as not lending itself to laying down territorial claims, which likely aided that culture in not becoming hierarchical.

What is Politics definitely is hyper materialist, but I think he makes a solid case in many of his critiques. His materialism does, however, seem to blind him to the solid argument Dawn of Everything makes that culture and conscious choice does seem capable of playing a large part in shaping society, such as the case of the differences between the Californian and Northwest coast native American tribes.

Without having finished the book, I can’t make a final conclusion. But at least from what I’ve read so far, I’d put forward that environmental conditions do seem to have a not insignificant influence in determining whether an ancient society will lean toward becoming hierarchical or egalitarian, simply due to the conditions being more or less favorable to a group or individual gaining a foothold over others due to resource access. But culture and choice seem capable of playing a large part in that outcome as well.

I think ultimately Dawn of Everything is going to result in more regular folk becoming aware of the facts that our ancestors were fully capable of egalitarian societies and that it was in fact the norm until recent history, which is a terrific boon, and I’ll certainly continue to recommend it for that reason alone. Though I think What is Politics’ series is also enlightening, and a good companion piece to the book to fill out areas that Graeber & Wengrow likely got a bit wrong just due to the sheer size and complexity of the project.

Could you elaborate on that? If I’m understanding you correctly, you’re suggesting it’s identity politics to say publicly that a piece of media influenced your political views?

Are there cases where that doesn’t apply? for example: “There Will Be Blood made me Anti-oil” or “How Nausica Valley of the Winds made me an Environmentalist”, or “Grave of the Fireflys made me Anti-war”. Are all of those conceptual titles equally verboten?

In another comment below, I briefly describe the sort of political content the game has in it. It’s not something a random leftist is projecting onto it, it’s explicitly political content in the game itself, which is what is being discussed.

It’s not really any different from discussing the themes or political content of Metal Gear Solid, Disco Elysium, or Planescape: Torment.

If that’s not something you’re interested, fair enough my friend! But surely it’s not an inconvenience for others to discuss it? The title makes it clear what this is, which makes it pretty easy to avoid and scroll on to the next post.

The first part seems to be for people who are unfamiliar with the games. The political analysis begins at 19 minutes.

The games go into:

• Discussion of monopolies, how they are used to exploit, and how they use state force to maintain their position to prevent competition
• The Carrot character is an anarchist in the first game, who infiltrates the weather factory of the second game to document the exploitation of its workers. He then gives the player a quiz about US economics so that you can infiltrate a board of directors, but when he becomes a member of the board himself, becomes a liberal reformist.
• In the third game, the devs put an easter egg only accessible by editing a config file with an obscure code, which adds police branded riot gear to the marching fascist candy soldiers, in a reference to the 1999 Seattle WTO Protests, which occurred 3 months before the release of the game.

It’s pretty solid, and reveals things I never could’ve imagined the devs would put into the game. Loved it as a kid growing up, but I have a whole new appreciation for it now.

OP, as someone who has a very similarly specced laptop:

Install Linux Mint, do a one click install of the Nvidia driver with the mint GUI driver installer, and then open the application that’s stuttering from your start menu by right clicking on it, and select ‘run with discrete GPU’, which will force it to use your Nvidia card.

Mint has access to newer nvidia drivers than mint, and Cinnamon let’s you open programs with exclusively the Nvidia GPU instead of integrated graphics from the start menu.

All I remember of that show was catching it on a VHS after I left it recording to grab squidbillies one night, and there was a scene of a shark trying to start a car for a really, really long time, which was pretty damn funny.

I’m mostly familiar with him from his series on why all marxist revolutions were dictatorships, where he’s quite scathing towards Marxism and all of its offshoots, and instead points out how Anarchist thinkers predicted all those poor outcomes, and how superior their solutions and methods were.

Overall from what I’ve seen of him, his opinions remind me of Bookchin’s more than anything (though I’m basing that on old interviews and the few things I’ve read of Bookchin’s).

A Mind Forever Voyaging, by Infocom.

It’s an old text adventure from the 80’s with a particularly cool and oddly relevant concept: You take the role of an AI that’s been meticulously raised in a simulation to truly become a general intelligence. The reason this project was undertaken was to eventually send you, the AI, into other simulations based in the near future to test the outcomes of various political policies of the new republican government, record your interactions, and report back to the engineers who created you.

The game’s designer said that he created the game in response to the despair he felt from Ronald Reagan being elected.

I haven’t gotten super far in it, but it has an incredibly well written short story in the manual that details all the events leading up to the start of the game, and so far the game itself is unlike anything else I’ve ever played.

There’s definitely something going on. Whenever I add a Lemmy instance URL that isn’t obfuscated somehow, like replacing the periods with commas or (dot), then my comment gets no likes or responses, whereas a very similar comment in the same thread without a link does.

It seems to down rank it in the algorithim, if not outright shadow remove them.

Steam workshop mods work across all OS’s, AFAIK.

Outside of that, I believe you can run the Windows Nexus Mod Manager in WINE. Otherwise, your best bet is this new Linux native mod organizer, which will add more game compatibility as time goes on.

They now have an official lemmy instance at https://50501.chat/.

!general@50501.chat