You must have been in charge when I was built. I've still got security issues, memory leaks, and there's a major known issue where under certain conditions I continue to work but stop providing any feedback or messaging.
If you could have your team at least address the resource management issue I'd be grateful.
This is how I feel every time I see an overpowered "prototype" weapon in a video game that works better than the standard version.
Agreed!
There's is a bit of clever game design in Deep Rock Galactic, which I hope catches on:
The default load out for new players is almost unarguably the best possible load-out, for that class, in the game.
As players progress, they can unlock more entertaining while objectively worse equipment, to amuse and challenge themselves.
And, I mean, of course we do. It's hilarious because some truly challenging gameplay emerges.
And when it's kicking my butt, I at least realize I chose that challenge for myself. I had the option to bring the good equipment that I started with, after all.
And it puts new players on more even footing with veterans. I tend to make easy missions with newbie friends harder on myself by bringing truly silly equipment load outs. It usually turns out fine, and when it goes badly for me, they feel good for rescuing a veteran. Or it goes sideways and I apologize and make slightly better equip choices for the next try.
I assume the excuse usually is that the prototype was unstable, so they had to 'tone it down'. But of course, you as the awesome hero man can control it!
It needs a flaw to be fun; there has to be a problem that made it unfit for production and the solution lowered the power. Too inefficient, too inaccurate, too big, too unsafe, too unreliable. Make it a fun thing the player can play around so it's a sidegrade rather than an upgrade
I just hear that they're so insecure they need to define themselves by someone else's deeply flawed version of better, instead of just being themselves and acknowledging what they like.
It's like asking what's the best colour, and someone answers "black, because it consumes all the other colours"
Considering the alpha wolf myth originates from observing a stressed out wolf population in captivity, unable to live out their fulfilling wolfy lives, the emergence of purported "alpha males" is an oddly appropriate indicator of what three decades of neoliberalism has done to our wellbeing.
The "alpha/beta" meme was invented by rightwing think tanks in the late 2000's/early 2010's to promote their ideology of rigid social-hierarchies where people at the top are allowed to impose and abuse people of lower social station with impunity, and to police and control the behavior of heterosexual men (it ain't just the LGBTQ's that get their gender-expression policed, ohhh no no no.)
It wouldn't even matter if it was "right". The idea of looking to wolves for models of ideal human behavior is wrong for like 17 different reasons, even if it were technically true as a description of wolf behavior.
P.S. why do AlphaBros specifically look at wolves, or lobsters, to instruct us on social hierarchy? There are so many other animals, those seem pretty random choices. And pretty far afield from humans. Wouldn't you at least want something more proximate to us humans on the evolutionary tree? Heck, why not just use humans as a reference point?
Yes, and the man who proposed the theory retracted it later, saying it would be like basing human behavioural theory on observations made in a supermax prison.
That actually makes sense that these losers would venerate it, since the behaviours they idolise are very like what you’d see in prisons: machismo instead of real manhood, narcissism and subjugation instead of empathy, and hatred instead of compassion.
Your man card wasn’t forfeited, it’s gilded. Only real men can appreciate art.
Have you seen Sondheim’s Into the Woods? It’s a masterpiece. It’s on Prime if you haven’t seen it. It stars Chip Zien, Bernadette Peters, Joanna Gleason, Tom Aldredge, and other big names. I’d like to see anyone say Zein, Aldredge, and Sondheim aren’t ‘real men’.
What kind of musicals do you like? I don't generally care for musicals as much as other play formats, but I got to see some real fun ones when I was a backstage tech at a theatre.
EOL, they're stuck, no updates, nothing fresh, their flaws are open, known and won't be fixed and if you get them, they're a seriously risk to your safety.
And the original concept, as it pertains to wolves, is evidently not a thing. So if we're just saying things, the software metaphor is as good as any other.
More stable, has all the required features, but can break down without warning with cryptic messages about what's wrong. Needs a little more testing and development before moving into the real world. So basically...teenagers.
Too bad the term "Alpha" males has gotten such a bad rap from cretins like Andrew Tate.
The term "Alpha male" refers to men with a mix of being tall, very good looks, charisma, authority, and social popularity. I think we can all agree that men with a high level of those traits are very popular with heterosexual, or have we fallen so far that most people don't see that?
To put it more simply, all the men on Lemmy combined will not have as many women lusting for them as Jason Momoa or one of those Kpop dudes. Don't call it Alpha Male if you want, because the term has been tarnished by hucketers. But we all know the type of man that has zero trouble attracting women.
We need to use another word besides Alpha. The division that the word "alpha" is associated with is the division between men who are desired by women and men who are not. If you're using the controversial word "alpha" that is what you are talking about. It's like classifying the rich vs the poor. Lemmy users don't want to accept this but most heterosexual men want to be the former in either case, no one wants to be the latter.
The study of the sociological of wolves and the nauseam of imbeciles are two different things. The imbeciles naturally misrepresent the reality on top of touting their Idiocracy.