Jump to content
  • Advertisement

mikeman

Member
  • Content Count

    5009
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

mikeman last won the day on September 7

mikeman had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3017 Excellent

2 Followers

About mikeman

  • Rank
    Legend

Personal Information

  • Role
    Programmer
  • Interests
    Art
    Programming

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. My first "game-playing" machine was the Atari 2600, but IIRC, it was around the age of 10 on my monochrome 286 and because of this game that I suddenly decided I wanted to "learn how to do that" At that point, I was imagining that game programmers was sort of deities, that had to program each and every possible state of the game - if, say, 8 sprites could be in myriad different positions and states, a programmer, I thought, had "programmed" each permutation. Slightly later, my father introduced me to QBASIC(though he himself quit trying to learn programming soon after), and I was blown away by GORILLAS.BAS - I could actually *see* the whole source code and then I pressed "Run" and this awesome game played. And now I work on the Battlefield franchise. It's been...a journey.
  2. The same can happen in technical discussions just fine. 1) We have a thread about singletons.(note : random example!) 2) Person A comes and claims "singletons are great" 3) Person B posts links about all the problems singletons can cause. 4) Person A responds with "You actually took the time to find links just to prove me wrong? You probably don't have much of a life!" Would you say that claiming that person A argues in bad faith is "arbitrary" and there's just no way to distinguish between them? Had he received a warning, or a downvote, would that be because the moderator punished him for his positive opinion on singletons? Granted, of course, it's harder in political "open-ended" threads.
  3. Even though I have decided personally to not participate in any future political threads(and it's a chance to maybe start posting again in technical forums instead of just browsing them), I wlll say this : The standard of "civil debate" that some people seem to hold is completely unattainable and hasn't really existed anywhere in history. If anyone thinks gatherings and debates in the Ancient Athenian Demos, or the Roman Senate, or the more modern Congresses and Parliaments are more "civil" than the threads here, they're terribly wrong. What appears as "terrible opinions" and "shit flinging" is what has always happened where common people gather to discuss current public affairs that affect them. Now, I just say this in general because it's getting a bit boring to have constantly held in front of your face some imaginary standard of "civil debate" that has not ever existed anywhere in the real world and nobody even knows what it looks like. I think we generally have as civil debates as could be had here - nobody threatened anybody with violence, or doxxing, or heavy name-calling. I'm not sure what people expect - some automatons that exchange graphs and charts when talking about toddler jails? We *are* talking about things that affect people in real-life in those threads, we're not exchanging ideas that float in the aether or about how to win in Civ5. Peronally I would keep that in mind(as in, the fact that we're dealing with human beings with emotions here), if I was to continue to allow political threads to exist . Of course it goes without saying that moderation is still important, and I was the first to admit that in that thread I could have handled it better - I probably deserved at least a warning. As I said, I've made my mind not to participate in any future political threads. In any case, marking threads as "political" (which is done now) and having downvotes disabled and not appearing on the content feed sounds like a reasonable idea to me. I admit it does seem very strange even to me to log onto Gamedev.net and see in the front page constant posts about political stuff.
  4. For my part, I'd say...I probably could have just focused just on the topic and leave the smart-assery behind, but I kinda find it hard to do in the 'heat' of the moment, even if it's online. In any case, I apologize for that. I'll probably stay away from political threads in the future for that reason, just to be on the safe side.
  5. mikeman

    How much longer can Trump/Trumpism last?

    My full question was "Let me ask you, when exactly did white upper-middle class Americans(fine people as individuals)...lost their hope and their connections to wealth and power in the West? Is there something I missed?" He answered "Not so much missed as have simply decided not to see". Now what exactly do *you* think he's on about? I have told you these people are convinced they are under attack and need to reclaim their ground.
  6. mikeman

    How much longer can Trump/Trumpism last?

    I see... But you're not 'politically motivated', eh? You innocent dove, you. I've got your number, dude. Maybe during a 2nd Trump presidency you'll actually feel empowered enough to tell us what you're *really* thinking.
  7. mikeman

    How much longer can Trump/Trumpism last?

    No no no, see, I didn't say that white upper-middle class men over 45 are "evil". I don't moralize here. *Your* point was(or seemed to be) that Trump's victory gave "renewed hope" to a 'large group of people' that felt 'out of the loop', threatened by a powerful and wealthy 'elite' that 'owns the free world' - that's why it's worth celebrating. Let me ask you, when exactly did white upper-middle class Americans(fine people as individuals)...lost their hope and their connections to wealth and power in the West? Is there something I missed?
  8. mikeman

    How much longer can Trump/Trumpism last?

    +1 for PSL. Frankly, if it wasn't the matter of climate change and racism/immigrants, I wouldn't even care much. You said it well about Obama's reaction to DAPL. But when it comes to climate change, the clock is ticking, and at least the "liberals" don't completely deny the issue, even if they can't do much about it.
  9. mikeman

    How much longer can Trump/Trumpism last?

    How's that for cogent? https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/groups-voted-2016/ Seems to me Trump represents mostly upper-middle class white men over 45, mate. Ah yes, the underdogs of the US and A, who never had a voice, now at last they got one, and their hopes are renewed. Let us celebrate, if not for nothing else, then for the fact that those that never had "one of their own" in power, now do. Let me remind you that in this thread you made one point, and one point alone, and it was this : "that Trump's victory has given a large number of people a renewed sense of hope that a small, unelected aristocracy of wealthy celebrities, business moguls and media figureheads don't own the free world. That's something everyone should be celebrating." Please consult the statistics I just posted and let me know if you think this point still stands. Is the "free world" really "owned" by black people, women and poor families?
  10. mikeman

    How much longer can Trump/Trumpism last?

    What 'reality'? All you said is that Trump represents those that voted for him. Well, yeah, he does. That's your point? Now, if your point was supposed to be that he represents the "downtrodden", the disenfranchised, the 'left behind', I'm afraid statistics don't agree with your thesis at all. Unless you think black women in the US represent the 'elite' and the 'establishment'. See, 'civil discourse' is impossible with your kind because you don't actually have anything to say(or if you have, you don't want to say it in broad daylight *yet*) - there's no program or policy for which you support Trump, it's pure reaction. So, talk about *what* exactly? Is there an actual, concrete subject here we can debate about? You don't hold Trump accountable for anything, any policies or decisions, because there's no reason you support him other than 'owning the libs'. As long as he does that, he's golden. You don't like to be called out on it, but you don't really have a logical response either, so you keep shouting 'civil discourse! civil discourse!' as your last resort. Also, whining about your downvotes? Grow up, snowflake.
  11. mikeman

    How much longer can Trump/Trumpism last?

    Yeah, I mean, McCain supported the 2003 Iraqi Invasion based on completely fabricated data about WMDs, which threw the country into complete chaos and gave birth to ISIS, but I think we all agree debating issues such as whether to bomb brown countries is something we Westerners can do in a civilized manner, agree to disagree, and not throw slurs at each other. That's what matters. The rest of the world is just pieces of a RISK game anyway. This overplayed video is just one instance anyway, because McCain probaby decided at that point that the whole madness about "Obama is a terrist" that he himself(and to a much greater extent his running mate Palin) participated in was getting out of hand, was not to his benefit and had to be contained somewhat. Or, alternatively, wanted some nice footage that could be used to prove what a decent human being he was and how he was totally not part of the whole "Obama is an Arab terrist/muslim/communist/Satan" thing. Example : Gee, I wonder where his fans got the strange idea that Obama was a terrist?? Where *did* that guy with the cap heard that Obama "cohorts with domestic terrorists"? Good thing old American Hero McCain set them straight and explained to the old lady how Obama is not an Arab, but a decent family man.
  12. mikeman

    How much longer can Trump/Trumpism last?

    >>" Is 'E pluribus unum' really a despised concept to most Americans? I haven't been to the US of A, but judging from what I hear and see from afar, and my various chats with Americans, not really, no. Most Americans of course are supporters of capitalism as they have always been, and rarely care about the plights of the rest of the world, as they always have not cared. Even the self-professed "democratic socialists" a-la Sanders that have become popular lately don't really care if their "universal healthcare" is paid by imperialist super-profits. It's just that, during the course of the 20th century, they have been forced, as the rest of the world, to establish *some* kind of welfare state for their population and regulations in order not to have a freaking revolution in their hands by a completely destitute segment of the working class whose life would become insufferable under the increasingly intense contradictions of capitalism. New Deal was probably the classic example of that. What Buffo calls "collectivism" is simply welfare capitalism. He of course predictably mentions 1913 as the year "America died" or whatever - you know, the year when the awfully evil 16th amendment about federal income tax was ratified, and shifted some of the burden from the poor to the rich. Welfare capitalism is in reality a magnificent achieventment of capitalism - by giving some crumbs and safety nets to the working people, especially to be used in times of the "slump" that inevitably follows the "boom" periods, it managed to remain on top, by lessening the contradictions that, if left unchecked, would lead it to collapse. Capitalism did what Marx never predicted it could do: it reformed itself in order to survive the new conditions, and it has. It's very simple really : if you want to remain in power, you have to change and reform when you need to, not pretend you can play the game with the same rules it was played 150 years ago. Other than that, USA is, by any sane standard, an extremely individualistic society. Curiously, there is a movement that believes that they should not have done even the minimum reforms that they did, and they should not even have established the minimum welfare state or anti-trust laws that they have, because, idk, it removes the incentives for hard work or innovation or some such - basically rabid ideologues that profess they believe in capitalism, yet leave it in their hands and they would cause USA to implode within 10 years, precisely because they are ideologues that have no concept of "you have to change when needed in order to remain the same". As a socialist, sometimes I wonder if I should support them for that reason, but then I remember accelerationism rarely works. And also, you know, we have that little pesky problem of climate change to deal with, which libertarians don't like thinking about, since externalities is something their ideology isn't really equipped to deal with, so let's just ignore it and/or wait for John Galt to invent a Total Recall-like atmosphere machine or something. Anyway, Hitchens put it best IMO "I have always found it quaint and rather touching that there is a movement in the US that thinks Americans are not yet selfish enough."
  13. mikeman

    The Battlefield V "Historical Accuracy" Controversy

    RivieraKid confuses "objective criticism" with "reasoned criticism". "Reasoned criticism" is when you give actual reasons on why you think X piece of art is good/bad, and it's obviously more valuable than "I loved it" or "I hated it". "Objective criticism" just doesn't exist. No, you can't say Taken 1 is "objectively" better than Taken 2 because it has objectively better choreography and pacing. By the same token, Taken 2 "objectively" portrays team-work(father-daughter fighting the bad guys) better than Taken 1(just dad) and I think how team work is portrayed in movies is more important than choreography. There. What you fail to understand is that, even if I "objectively" manage to rank individual factors of the movie/book/whatever, the weight I assign to them is still subjective. By my standards, literally all Star Wars movies suck balls, and I can do a pretty good job arguing why. Sir Alec Guinnes agrees with me too. https://io9.gizmodo.com/5974242/alec-guinness-thought-star-wars-was-fairytale-rubbish-and-harrison-fords-first-name-was-tennyson Orson Welles thought Bergman sucked, and gave reasons why. Bergman thought Welles sucked, and gave reasons why. They both thought Godard sucked, and gave reasons why. Godard loved both of them, and gave reasons why. There's no objective in art. http://flavorwire.com/200745/the-30-harshest-filmmaker-on-filmmaker-insults-in-history
  14. mikeman

    The Battlefield V "Historical Accuracy" Controversy

    At this point, may I remind everyone that BF1 had the freaking Iron Man Mark 1 suit in it and, while people did point out that it was unrealistic, they didn't start a #notmybattlefield campaign. Somehow I can't stop laughing when reading this. I can only hope this is a 12-yrold kid, otherwise we have a problem.
  15. mikeman

    Communism 2.0

    Ehm, that's pretty much how it worked in the USSR. There *were* people in charge of running individual enterprises, of course, directors, managers, etc, but their status and bonuses where determined on how well they delivered the goals that the central planing agency(Gosplan) set for them. And those plans were supposed to be designed in order to benefit the people as a whole(provide use value to them), with all enterprises working together and not competing. I mean, you say "continue operating their private business but motive would not be profit driven but value driven". But if that's true, then you don't really *own* a private business which you run with the goal of making money, in competition with other private businesses whose goal is also to make money, you are just a manager-employee of the state(call it what you like, society/commune/whatever) that runs an enterprise whose objective is to create use value for society, and you are rewarded with certain perks if you do your job well.What kind of "owner" are you if you let others dictate what the goal of your business is(provide use value and not make profit?) I mean, without money and the market, who exactly determines your "status" if not some kind of state? As I mentioned...that's pretty much how things worked in the USSR. I also don't understand what you mean by "business won't be constrained by financial resources". So say I want to start a business that produces a whatchamacallit, who exactly determines that I should be given offices, equipment and personnel to operate my business, instead of the same resources being given to another guy that wants to start producing a different whatchamacallit? Is it determined based on what would be more beneficial for the economy as a whole? By whom? And who exactly determines(since we have no money) that I have done a good job operating the business, so they can reward me with my "higher status"?
  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

We are the game development community.

Whether you are an indie, hobbyist, AAA developer, or just trying to learn, GameDev.net is the place for you to learn, share, and connect with the games industry. Learn more About Us or sign up!

Sign me up!