faceh
18d ago
There were so many other ways to address the issue available, and they availed themselves of none but the most direct and violent one.
If there's a violation of the law, send the guy a notice to appear or otherwise drag him into court unless he gets paperwork in order. I understand the government can't 'ignore' a well-documented violation of the law but we'd expect them to use the lightest hand possible when enforcing said law unless there was some massive public interest at stake.
To make an absurd comparison, its like burning down the Branch Davidian compound rather than arresting David Koresh while he's out on a jog.
From Software
Could count it. Demon Souls came out in 2009, and every game since then appears to have been a banger and financially successful. They get points for being prolific in that period, vs. Rockstar.
I would also put Nintendo in the running for mostly having very well made games put out for their main IPs
Also fair. I'd literally put them in a class of their own. I want to read a book that explains how they have such high levels of quality control for even the silliest of their game releases.
It does make me realize how many IPs on this page have had at least one serious misstep, though.
Now I'm trying to think of any IPs or studios that had a horrible sequel that trashed the series' reputation, only to come roaring back with a later entry.
Maybe Resident Evil? I know that it allegedly fell off after RE5 (the last one I played) but Village was well-regarded and popular.
I am starting to theorize that Prediction markets will have a bit of a bias inherent to them on certain issues, given that the participants are generally pro-capitalist and like/trust markets. This probably broadly correlates with certain beliefs and preferences which gently nudge how they trade to put the result a point or two off from 'reality.'
Polymarket might reinforce this issue, being crypto-based.
And of course - do you think we'll see outright political violence?
Yes. Do I think it will be on a scale large enough to warrant alarm? Not sure. Probably not. Trump wins we're seeing some cities get huge protests, some of which will turn into rioting and looting. Kamala wins and I'm not sure where the violence pops up, but there'll be some.
Overall, how was your experience of this election? Did it seem noticeably different from any recent elections in any particular way?
It has been miserable for me in that the candidates we got would probably have lost handily to almost any of the respective opposing Party's other frontrunners.
Isn't this mostly what Robin Hanson's The Elephant in the Brain is about? Haven't read it yet.
Even intelligent people are still driven by urge to seek status and fit in and receive social acceptance, and that can be hacked by a savvy operator, even if the smart person 'knows better.'
You've succinctly explained my major issues with how the game industry handles/ruins popular IPs and blows up game studios' reputations with the hopes of making quick money at the expense of gaining loyal customers. Which also happens in other industries, but probably to a lesser degree.
Right now I think Rockstar is the only game company that has retained an impeccable reputation for the sheer quality of every product. And they've got a stranglehold on a global, multi-billion dollar market because of it. (EDIT: I forgot Valve, but they currently have a reputation for rarely releasing games, these days)
And even that came under threat from releasing a poorly-done remaster of their previous games.
It also has a reputation for crunch, burnout, and generally being a miserable company to work for, but honestly that seems necessary for achieving greatness in this competitive industry.
If you tried to distill a GTA game down to its minimal elements, a naive person would probably say "You can steal cars, drive them around a huge map, shoot bystanders, fight the cops, and enjoy a story full of 'colorful' characters and crude humor. Also you can bang hookers."
And then you try to make a game that meets that minimal description and you get the Saints Row series. Which really only gained popularity when it took off in its own direction by leaning into absurdity, parody, and optimizing for 'fun.'
And, of course, recently blew up its goodwill with a shitty attempt to reboot that series. Nobody even TALKS about it anymore.
Probably because some MBAs tried to distill Saints Row down AND take it in a stupid direction.
faceh
20d ago
Because they don't have the advantage of an ongoing pandemic to motivate against in-person voting and creating cover for a sizeable increase in absentee ballots.
I think there's just going to be fewer ballots out there to that are ripe for harvest, ultimately.
faceh
20d ago
Yep. I don't know what is most likely to motivate otherwise detached males enough to get them to the polls, so this might be what tilts it for her, honestly.
Although... it is entirely possible that males are motivated to vote because of how horrible the Harris messaging towards them has been. It might be enough for them to realize there's nothing good for them coming if she wins.
faceh
20d ago
I actually do expect a large gender divide this time, because yes Harris is banking on her appeal to women, mostly single ones. Their attempts to snag married women are, as you see in that ad, tone deaf.
And I expect that single males have been driven away because Harris literally cannot try appealing to them as a group with their own independent concerns without pissing off said single females and a few other groups that she relies on. There hasn't been a single aspect of the Harris campaign that has made me, a white male, feel confident she represents 'my interests' or even acknowledges what those interests or concerns are.
(my opposition to Harris is deeper than my identity, mind)
I'm also on record stating that single females are a reliable voting block who can be motivated and steered by fear. So messaging on fascism and abortion are probably good at energizing these types to get out there and vote EXACTLY how blue tribe wants. What is also does is primes them for absolutely insane freakouts if she loses, though.
So it may indeed come down to male turnout vs. female turnout.
faceh
20d ago
It is frivolous, but it taps into a particular undercurrent for anybody who distrusts the government and likes cute critters. It sort of analogizes to the theme of "uncaring government arbitrarily killing things you love" vs. those who trust government to be mostly benevolent with its power which defines at least some of the Trump/Harris divide.
I don't know if Harambe dying swung any election outcomes, but it was probably the most popular meme to arise that year, and has persisted for a long time.
I dunno, the right clearly likes meme magic more than the left, so its not surprising to me they'd try to cast one last spell right before its time to vote.
faceh
20d ago
Interesting, except the number of people claiming to be "independent" is near all time high.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/548459/independent-party-tied-high-democratic-new-low.aspx
I'd say the bases of each party are probably smaller than it has been in a while. Lot MORE people to be persuaded.
I think its a tight race because the Democrats managed to pick a candidate that is arguably less popular and likeable with independents than Trump.
faceh
20d ago
The American left spending the final days before the election losing its shit over Trump calling Liz Cheney a chicken hawk and blatantly lying to claim he wants to put her in front of a firing squad seems like loser behavior.
Kamala refusing a Rogan interview after both Trump and Vance go on likewise reads as "losing type behavior."
At least the squirrel thing is fun and seems to be based on truth.
faceh
20d ago
Fascinating.
Had you heard that the GOP has tightened the voter registration gap in PA by about 300k?
Do we recall that Biden won PA by 70k in 2020., and the GOP has gained support since then.
Do we think the Dems were more or less efficient at ballot harvesting that year?
Do we think the GOP might be more or less organized at getting out the vote in 2024?
Just thinking out loud. Like I said, Kamala has no advantage that Biden lacked, and some apparent disadvantages.
Seems absurd to expect her to do better than 2020 Biden.
faceh
20d ago
Yeah, I do expect the gender split to be significant.
Because I'm also sure a lot of guys will peel off because holy SHIT the Harris campaign has been horrible at marketing to males, in particular white ones. Not sure if that means they'll come out for Trump, though.
There's certainly an argument that higher female turnout relative to male could tilt it for her.
faceh
20d ago
Well, I'll toot my own horn:
Quoth me 12 days ago:
I also expect the markets to narrow in a bit as we come closer to the election and people decide to close out their positions at a marginal profit rather than actually take the dice roll. If somebody bought a bunch of Trump shares at ~45-50% and can sell them for 55-60% that's a decent profit for a short period trade.
Wasn't sure if they'd get right back to 50-50, but when there's THIS MUCH actual uncertainty (everyone has their vibes, but there simply no trustworthy, unbiased way to call the election in advance) then the 'money' has to return to baseline because very few people are willing to keep their funds at risk all the way to the final bell.
Previously I thought Trump had a pretty solid shot at winning this but I’m seriously thinking Harris has it in the bag now, against all odds.
Lmao. Harris doesn't have any single advantage that Biden lacked going into 2020, and has a number of disadvantages.
My personal expectations, in order of decreasing confidence: Trump squeaker win. Kamala Squeaker win. Trump blowout.
A Kamala Blowout doesn't seem possible, and my post up there explained my thoughts:
So in short, she's got the die-hard Dem base + the anti-Trump brigade on lock, but I think she utterly lacks cross-demographic appeal AND has been boxed in by the dueling demands of demographics they DO have support from, such that any attempts to outreach sincerely to outgroups will be interpreted as defection.
Which demographics is she pulling in 2024 that Biden DIDN'T pull in 2020? Make the case for me because I don't see any way she pulls better numbers than Biden. I can buy that Trump might do a bit worse than he did in 2020.
If I know the identity of my counterparty, it should in theory be possible to check whether they cast a vote or stayed home as agreed.
Not sure what the proper penalty would be.
faceh
22d ago
Eh. Find a website that matches me with someone in my state who is voting the exact opposite slate that I am so we can both stay home rather than wasting time on a vote that would just cancel each other out.
Well my personal take is that "MAGA" as such dies with Trump. Doesn't mean he takes the entire right-wing edifice with him.
I'm far more interested in what comes after Trump, given how disruptive he was to prior alliances.
I suspect JD Vance is a hint of what we'll be seeing later on.
if the Democrats hadn't chosen an invalid and then an incompetent to be their standard bearers.
Realize how much of that was almost inevitable given the ideological demands the Dem base now makes. Think about why Kamala didn't pick Shapiro despite desperately NEEDING to win PA. Think about why the Dems can't do effective outreach to male voters or even acknowledge that male voters have their own independent set of concerns.
Can the Dems even run a standard, electable candidate without ticking off a large part of that base and triggering infighting anymore? Do they have candidates that can clear the primaries (a significant portion of the Dem electorate backed Bernie Sanders twice) and then be dominant in the general these days?
If it 'died' it is in large part because it wasn't fit for the new environment and DEFINITELY wasn't fit to battle its major competitor.
I'd view this as more of an adaptation than anything else.
faceh
23d ago
Right, it would make more sense for rationalists to offer advice on how to pick a good school board candidate or a good city councilman or a good dog-catcher, for races where the reader has a tangible impact on the outcome.
Literally, offering any endorsement at all on a presidential race seems reads like you believe you're influential enough to make a difference, which could be just a tad... delusional? Narcissistic? I get why Newspaper editorial boards would do it, but not every single personality need voice their opinion on this.
Will you have more impact on the vote than Taylor Swift? If not, then why exactly are you spending this effort?
faceh
23d ago
I would occasionally remind people that Nancy Pelosi was actively encouraging people to go out in public in large groups in those very early stages.
It might be arguable that the Pandemic wouldn't have gotten so aggressively politicized (that was the biggest disappointment, to me) sans Trump but I don't think there's much argument over who was doing the politicizing.
faceh
23d ago
On the other hand,being a non-voter should also provide strong evidence about the behavior of you and those like you in ways that influence those in power to adjust behavior.
If, say, only 10% of the eligible population voted in a major election, sure the voters 'decided' the actual outcome, but you think that those in power might take note of the fact that a lot of people purposefully abstained? That might be the strongest message of all!
In the absence of a 'none of the above' option... it could be the case that by deciding NOT to vote, you resolve reality in a way that aligns with your incentives.
Man, I'm going to be a good rationalist and "notice I am confused" about rationalists who choose to actively endorse voting at all as a means of affecting positive changes, given the candidates we have on offer.
I do not get how somebody could watch the events that unfolded from early 2020 to now and ultimately decide that picking the status quo candidate is a 'rational' path forward, without it being a purely ideological choice of which 'team' you think you're a member of.
I can see how risk aversion would drive one away from Trump, as he presents many unknowns, mostly in terms of who he'd bring into positions of power. Yet, during his term we DIDN'T have tensions with other countries escalating into armed conflict. We DIDN'T have mass persecution of minorities or prosecution of political opponents. We had riots over racial issues, that much MUST be admitted... but they were centered almost entirely in Democrat-controlled cities and Democrat-run states! The Dem's VP Candidate was governor of the state where that all kicked off, the literal epicenter! What are they signalling with that choice??
I won't belabor the point around pandemic response, but there is simply no reason to believe that the Dems would have done categorically better than Trump, and some reason to believe they'd be worse.
And with the 'status quo' candidates, we've had blowups all over the place, and it sure feels like they're not interested in putting a lid on it, and it also looks like we're less able to for like 100 reasons. And it sure DOES feel like they're trying to put a lid on U.S. technological progress, instead.
I'm not trying to even be convincing with the above, just explaining why my 'rational' analysis is that Trump is simply not 'the problem' with the system. He's probably not 'the solution' either. The case that he is worse than the status quo simply falls flat to me, anything horrible you might expect him to do he either didn't do during his first term, or the current admin is already doing said horrible thing. We are tangibly closer to something resembling 'World War III" now than at any point back when some kept expecting Trump to cause it.
And perhaps worst, if you actively endorse Kamala, you're signalling loud and clear that its completely fine for the powers that be to lie about the mental state of a sitting president or other candidate, to abruptly pull him out of the race and swap him for a different, unpopular candidate without any input from the voters, and prop them up against any objections as to their fitness. Oligarchy just picking who they want to lead, and if they win, it was rewarded.
So guess what, you can fully expect them to do it again. How in the hell do you justify that as an outcome?
And it Trump is really, truly so horrible as you keep insisting, that he is so beyond the pale that rational folks must oppose him, and he wins again, consider why the status quo is so horribly unpopular and Trump's arguments are sufficiently convincing that he can beat them in an election despite them holding virtually all the cards and bringing every single underhanded tool and pulling out every single stop to try and suppress his popularity.
It'd be an indictment of the status quo all by itself. A ruling party not competent enough to beat Donald Trump (while staying mostly within the rules and norms of the game, assassination should be off the table!) is probably not one we should be endorsing to continue leading us. REMEMBER, the status quo we had before Trump is what led to Trump getting elected in the fucking first place!
Yep. Still confused.
Hell, a lot of people are motivated by it because a from the outside it appears that many ordinary people were put through the wringer and many are still in prison or will be heading to prison over it.
That was probably the biggest misstep. Making a big deal of out J6 was one thing, but slamming people with no criminal records with prison time reads as pure political payback.
This is the one time it would have been helpful to exercise some restraint and leniency, but it'd be hard to square that with the narrative that the republic was inches from being overthrown.
More options
Context Copy link