If I’d seen this earlier then you woulda gotten some crazy (very NSFW) shit.

Seriously. You can be a good girl or good boy that fishes up a giant whale using nothing but your fishing rod and meows/barks. 10/10.

One time I played exploding kittens and fucked everyone else over so hard that I felt bad and never played again because I was too good at guessing what kinds of cards people had, how and when they’d use them, and remembering who had already used their defuses. The result was that I was really good at setting people up to explode. On top of that, I was told afterward that I had a terrifyingly good poker face; that the moment the game began I turned into an expressionless robot kinda poker face.

Made me feel like an asshole even though I wasn’t meaning to try-hard it.

Imo it has less to do with photorealism vs non-photorealism and more to do with pbr (physically based rendering) vs non-pbr. The former attempts to recreate photorealistic graphics by adding additional texture maps (typically metallic/smooth or specular/roughness) to allow for things ranging from glossiness and reflectivity, to refraction and sub-surface scattering. The result is that PBR materials tend to have little to no noticeable difference between PBR enabled renderers so long as they share the same maps.

Non-pbr renderers, however, tend to be more inaccurate and tend to have visual quirks or “signatures”. For an example, to me everything made in UE3 tends to have a weird plastic-y look to it, while metals in Skyrim tend to look like foam cosplay weapons. These games can significantly benefit from raytracing because it’d involve replacing the non-pbr renderer with a PBR renderer, resulting in a significant upgrade in visual quality by itself. Throw in raytracing and you get beautiful shadows, speculars, reflections, and so on in a game previously incapable of it.

Not really, Genesis was one of my favorite bands growing up, and they still have some of my favorite albums. I knew it was just a meme, but I couldn’t pass up a chance to share my opinion on the Gabriel vs Collins debate lol

People like to split Genesis into Peter Gabriel and Phil Collins eras, but the truth is that Genesis should be split into Steve Hackett vs Tony Banks. Hackett’s departure from Genesis was the final nail in the Genesis prog-coffin and it’s when the band started shifting from prog to pop.

The composition shift becomes obvious when you compare The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway, Trick of the Tail and Wind & Wuthering with albums like …And Then There Were Three, ABACAB and Duke. The former group, consisting of a “Gabriel” album + the first two “Collins” albums, sound very similar; enough so that I’ve seen people mistakenly associate Trick of the Tail and Wind & Wuthering with Gabriel despite being voiced by Phil Collins. This is because Hackett’s guitar was still present and Gabriel, planning for the possibility of his departure, had been singing with Collins backing him, so the vocal shift wasn’t as obvious.

Meanwhile, the latter group (…and Then There Were Three, ABACAB and Duke) came after Hackett’s departure and are much more synth driven. Furthermore, they begin to shift to a more pop-driven sound as Tony Banks’ synths take over and no longer need to share the soundstage with Hackett’s guitar.

As such, the Gabriel-Collins debate is misframed and should instead be Hackett-Banks.

That said, I thoroughly enjoy most of Genesis’ releases, even including Invisible Touch and We Can’t Dance (though I’ve never tried to listen to From Genesis to Revelation or Calling All Stations). Treat Hackett and Banks’ albums like separate bands that just coincidentally happen to share the same name and band members, and you’ll enjoy them way more.

I’m a bit late to the conversation, but I’ve heard dermarollers + rogaine/topical minoxidil can help! Both are over-the-counter. Might be worth talking to a dermatologist about.

Edit: also enby auntcle is kind of a transition goal for me too lol

Alright, since you’re confused, let me try to break this down for you.

Here’s your original message:

I mean…yeah…but also fuck the democrats. We shouldn’t be stuck in this position of genocide and fascism there and here or “just” genocide and fascism there. There are certainly degrees of being a piece of shit, but at this point, we are splitting hairs.

Okay, so

I mean…yeah…

Okay, this could mean two things: you agree, or you are acknowledging someone’s position

but

Alright, so, now we know that if you agree, then you have a disagreement on how it’s presented. Alternatively, you have acknowledged their position and are disagreeing with it.

also

Again, this doesn’t tell me whether or not you agree, this just says you have something to say in addition to a prior statement (“I mean…yeah…but”). It still doesn’t indicate whether or not you actually agree or if you’re just acknowledging their position.

fuck the democrats.

Alright, so here’s an actual position. Not unreasonable imo; however, it is a very hostile statement.

We shouldn’t be stuck in this position of genocide and fascism there and here or “just” genocide and fascism there.

I agree with this too, absolutely a reasonable position to take. However, you’ve yet to clarify if you actually agree with OP, or if you’re taking an opposing side. If you think that it should be obvious by this point, you’re right.

In a sane environment this statement shouldn’t be ambiguous.

In a sane environment someone would read this and think that you’re describing the Dems (making an assumption here) as being the lesser of two evils.

However, this statement also indicates disapproval of the Democrats, which, again, is a reasonable position to take in a sane world. However, there are enough people who say this as a way to put people back on the fence (or even get them to vote for a different party) that I still can’t rule anything out at this point.

There are certainly degrees of being a piece of shit, but at this point, we are splitting hairs.

Now you’re reducing the idea of Palestinians being genocided vs Palestinians, LGBT, PoC, women seeking abortions, etc being genocided to “po-tay-toe/po-tah-toe”. That’s what splitting hairs usually refers to. It’s needlessly debating something considered trivial or mundane. I think that is what is getting you into trouble.

Implying that the difference between one group and many groups being subjected to genocide is not a trivial thing, and it casts doubt on the rest of your statement. Personally it makes me think you’re trying to argue for voting 3rd party during this election.

So, I can see how you thought your statement was clear, but unfortunately there are enough bad actors on Lemmy that it wasn’t as clear as you thought it was.

Edit: if you want to clarify your position, you could say something like, “fuck the Dems, I hate that Harris is our only option” or “I hate that I feel like I have to vote for Harris”. This way you have clarified that you intend to vote for Harris, or that you agree that Harris is better than Trump, while also voicing your distaste for the Democrats.

I’m trans. I live in Texas. What do you want me to say?

Yeah? But all you said was “fuck the democrats”. There are enough people on here who say “fuck the democrats” but mean “vote for someone else” that you can’t leave that ambiguity.