domain:drrollergator.substack.com?q=domain:drrollergator.substack.com
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
10m ago
It's not about the individual characters or elements though, it's about the philosophy behind them. The idea of having a character in a wheelchair in your fps about elite spec ops units is bugnuts retarded and can only come from a brain warped by a perverse concept of inclusivity. World war 2 was not won by girlbosses and jamming one in your game immediately demonstrates a fealty to diversity over anything else like pleasing your fans or historical accuracy.
But yes, the justification used to do all that was easy money. It was an overly simplistic perspective that equated to cooking the golden goose to smuggle in the progressive agenda, but that was the justification.
stuckinbathroom
16m ago
there are big differences in how front-end, back-end, embedded, and medical/aviation/automotive/defense (validation!) developers are tasked with thinking that probably selects for political persuasions.
By “tasked with thinking” you mean what they think about/do on the job?
I’m curious as to what your perspective is on how that influences the politics of these groups, but IMO defense developers skew much further right than the others not because of the type of engineering work, but rather because working for the military/MIC codes as Red Tribe
DiscourseMagnus
29m ago
Geopolitical balance of power, the fall of Russia as a power and the rise of China (as economic powers). Since ~2017, chinese GDP has been higher (PPP) than US GDP.
Perhaps more important than Russia falling and China rising is Russia and China getting friendlier with one another. The Sino-Soviet split was a major factor in the Soviet loss of the Cold War; now, Russia and China are becoming a single anti-American bloc again.
Rov_Scam
34m ago
Political Quick Hits
A few scattered thoughts that don't merit separate posts:
The Nancy Mace Capitol Hill bathroom saga has come to an unceremonious close. Sarah McBride issued a public statement that she came to Washington to legislate, not to wage personal battles, and that she'd abide by whatever the House wanted. Trans activists were predictably disappointed, not only wanting a more forceful response from McBride but a unified response from House Democrats, but they weren't going to get it. The only notable public statement came from AOC, who pointed out that neither Mace nor Mike Johnson could tell you how they planned on enforcing such a rule, unless they planned on posting a guard who would check the genitals of anyone who looked suspicious. She also cynically accused Mace of trying to exploit the issue to get her name in the papers. Mace responded by calling AOC dumb and her suggestion disgusting, but she didn't offer any alternative enforcement mechanism. Johnson himself sided with Mace, but only to the extent that he believed existing rules favored her interpretation, and he never said that he'd be bringing Mace's resolution to a vote.
This whole tack seems like it's part of a new strategy for the Democratic Party. Five years ago an incident like this would have resulted in mass condemnation from the entire party, including those in leadership positions. The sum total of opposition in this case came from three people, and all three seem like they were hand-selected. Two were LGBT themselves, and the only one with any national profile was AOC, easily the most liberal member with any credibility. And even then, the comments were unusually focused. All three reps managed to hit just two themes: That the suggested rules were unenforceable, and that Mace is doing this as a publicity stunt. No long jeremiads about trans rights or anything. It's almost as if they've finally become aware that the issue is a loser, and rather than engage they'd rather let the issue quietly die while letting the least vulnerable members of the party get a few potshots in.
Meanwhile, in the wake of the Gaetz withdrawal, the center of attention among Trump's controversial cabinet picks has shifted to Pete Hesgeth. In addition to falling woefully short of the traditional qualifications for Defense Secretary, Hesgeth is taking heat for sexual misconduct allegations in his past and for comments suggesting that women shouldn't serve in combat. Once again, Democrats have been unusually silent, with the exception of Senator Tammy Duckworth, whose legs were blown off in Iraq. I suspect this whole thing is part of an exercise in time biding. There is serious doubt as to whether Hesgeth will survive the confirmation process. But a sex scandal and some controversial comments won't be enough to sink his nomination on their own. The biggest knock against Hesgeth is that he's written books where he essentially says that conservatives should aim for complete victory over liberals, whom he describes as enemies of America, and suggests that it may ultimately be appropriate to use the US military in pursuit of that goal.
If Democrats bring this up now then he gets to respond on his own terms, and by the time confirmation hearings roll around the results become predictable. On the other hand, if they start hammering him about predictably dumb shit now then he spends his energy responding to predictably dumb shit that he gets predictably hammered about during confirmation hearings, only for Democrats to change tack in the middle and start asking him about all the controversial opinions in his book. I wouldn't expect him to be caught totally off guard, but he won't have had weeks to rehearse his responses. How he responds to this kind of grilling could be the difference between whether the requisite number of Republican senators vote against him or not.
One other notable figure Democrats have been eerily silent about is RFK, Jr. I suspect this is because while rank and file Democrats hate him for his dumb woo woo opinions on vaccines and other things, actual politicians realize that he's the most liberal cabinet member they're likely to get. Hell, he's probably more liberal than anyone Kamala Harris would have appointed to the post. So Democrats won't challenge him, just lob softball questions at him asking him to expound on his opinions of abortion, single payer healthcare, dangerous chemicals, and big bad pharmaceutical companies. If the guy is going to be confirmed anyway, and is likely the best you're going to get, then why not throw your support behind him in a way that makes Republican senators squirm? Worst case scenario his nomination fails due solely to opposition from the party that nominated him.
After Hesgeth, Tulsi Gabbard seems to be the nominee that the smart people seem to think has the least likelihood of being confirmed. I don't think it behooves Democrats to back her in the way it behooves them to back RFK, but her nomination presents an interesting conundrum. A large part of Trump voters supported him, at least in part, because he was perceived as an America First isolationist who wouldn't get us into any new wars and try to get us out of existing ones. Yet Tulsi is the only cabinet nominee who seems to embody that vision. Everyone else—Rubio, Walz, Hesgeth, Ratcliffe—are all traditional conservative hawks. Her presence in the cabinet would only serve to foment the same kind of dysfunction that riddled Trump's first cabinet. As a former Democrat and tepid member of the GOP, Republicans might prefer a more united front when it comes to foreign policy and sweep her aside as the Democrats did, and for the same reasons. That being said, I've always been skeptical of Trump's supposed dovishness, as I've never met a Republican who didn't want to bomb Iran at the first opportunity. But I still think it's odd that he hasn't just gone full neocon.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
36m ago
I think for me a big issue is the polarization of the United States. It’s probably not completely unprecedented, but it’s crazy to my self raised in the 1980s and 1990s that we live in a world where half of the country views the other half as subversive if not dangerous. I don’t think if you’d go back to 1985 and said that in 2025, people would consider the president elect a danger to democracy— especially given that such a sentiment is not a fringe thing, a major political party, hell the current president, have said so. I don’t think, other than the American Civil War, you had something quite so polarized.
From personal experience, the vast majority of competent and brilliant software engineers are either progressive or turbo-liberals.
By "turbo-liberal" here are you including libertarian types? They have existed as a consistent minority within software development since at least ESR's day, but I don't think they're as party-aligned as they might have been at the time.
I do think there's probably a poorly-researched difference in political alignment across the software spectrum: there are big differences in how front-end, back-end, embedded, and medical/aviation/automotive/defense (validation!) developers are tasked with thinking that probably selects for political persuasions. For example, I wouldn't be surprised if more left-leaning developers are prone to be more involved with public development (open source, conferences, etc), while self-driven solo developers (Linus circa 1993, Carmack, and such) have a different bent.
daguerrean
40m ago
Can anyone think of any notable artworks produced by extremely online and transgressive subcultures like incels (but not limited to them)? Things like Negative XP. Ideally things with some artistic merit and not just meme value (like Elliot Roger's My Twisted World).
MathWizard
Good things are good
42m ago
This seems heavily confounded about the fact that honest people will communicate their brilliance in honest ways and use it towards pro-social ends, ie publishing scientific papers or teaching people, or just explaining their thoughts and intentions openly when queried. Meanwhile, brilliant but dishonest people will hide their brilliance and use it to gain power and wealth in sneaky ways. There are lots of politicians and high-level bureaucrats that are really really good at political manipulations, which requires a certain type of intelligence, even if they appear stupid when talking about object-level policies. Leaders of cults or Backscratcher Clubs are going to be very intelligent and also dishonest. There are brilliant lawyers and CEOs and investment bankers who make tons of money and keep their secrets to themselves because the more people know what they know the less advantage their intelligence gives them. Literally anyone dealing with zero-sum interactions has an incentive to be smarter than the people around them, meaning to not broadcast their intelligence, and to deceive the people around them into doing the wrong thing so they can be exploited.
People at the extremes of rational/scientific/autistic intelligence are honest, because the thing that distinguishes this type of intelligence from the sneaker manipulative type of intelligence is the focus on truth and objectivity. The former is often the stereotype people think of when they think of intelligence, but if you define it this way then the connection between intelligence and honesty becomes tautological. If instead you define intelligence as the ability to perform cognitive labor and/or solve problems required to achieve one's goals then we notice this large class of anti-social and dishonest but very intelligent and successful people doing things that pay more than science does.
recovering_rationaleist
46m ago
- Current existential threats: AI, pandemics, nuclear proliferation (and Lybia, Ukraine, NK, Iran show the incentives for/against a country pursuing nuclear weapons)
- The rise of global trade: semiconductor markets, shipping lanes (compare to Roman Roads), global financial markets / how and why the USD is the global currency
- Global telecom and instantaneous communication
- Geopolitical balance of power, the fall of Russia as a power and the rise of China (as economic powers). Since ~2017, chinese GDP has been higher (PPP) than US GDP.
- Chinese demographics (and the big question of economics in a shrinking population), China and Taiwan/Hong Kong (back to its origin in opium wars)
- Chinese dependency on the West: China imports fuel and food, exports manufactured goods.
- US military build-up in the Pacific vs. South China sea as a barrier to US containment
- Hybrid warfare
- Not current issue, but a fun thing for me to think about: "how to raise a country into an economic miracle" (Korea) vs. "how to destroy a country" (Venezuela, Gosplan). The relevant point I would emphasize is that you need some unit of value (money) which signals the amount of resources which go into a product, and which signals how many resources people are willing to give up for that product. This distributed computation cannot be efficiently centralized!
- Within the US, the financialization of corporations and rising power of private equity/monopolies: downfall of Boeing (funneling money into stock buybacks), PE firms buying real estate and setting up local dental monopolies, market power being abused to add junk fees and raise prices (Ticketmaster), etc.
"...resisted almost all activist demands for Blackrock to divest from arms companies and fossil fuels firms..." Which has nothing whatsoever to do with pushing Woke.
"...money invested in ESG-focused funds..." This is just hilariously missing the point. Blackrock doesn't just "invest" - it provides day-to-day funding for businesses. You don't get access to those funds if you don't meet Larry Fink's requirements on diversity, which is why I had to sit through interminable videos of my CEO (and other bigwigs) verbally fellating Fink's (Fink is praised by name) diversity initiatives and how vitally important they are, never mind the obvious negative impacts it has had to our company's performance.
edit: also, what makes you think that only the funds specifically marketed as "ESG-focused" get your money? Look up your company's 401(k) plan information; I assure you, even if you're not chosing to invest in ESG funds, your money is still going there.
hydroacetylene
51m ago
The energy transition, with a discussion of peak oil. Low TFR and population aging. Mass migration, populism, social media.
atelier
Jimmys: unrustled
58m ago
Van Creveld's 4th gen Warfare manual is one I'd recommend for this list!
DelendaEst
1hr ago
Yeah, the defenestration of Brendan Eich was one of the first big moves of the Awokening. High level devs just tend to be lefties, it doesn't have to be all of them just enough to make it SEEM like its all of them and keep righties in the closet (and Damore the ones who don't), and the unaligned will mostly go along with whichever group seems to be in the majority.
MathWizard
Good things are good
1hr ago
What's your point? Because in the real world we observe a lot of overly woke games and movies that just flop and lose a lot of money. And we see some that make money also. It's usually when they take a pre-existing franchise that has built an audience that likes what it already was and then change it to be more woke that, although might appeal more to more progressive audiences, annoys the existing audience and then makes way less money than a faithful continuation would have.
You can't explain this by just claiming they're flattering the politics of the audience for monetary gain. They're literally doing the opposite on both counts.
anon_
1hr ago
Proposed answer: Political selection of devs.
I mean, it's the political orientation of devs.
From personal experience, the vast majority of competent and brilliant software engineers are either progressive or turbo-liberals. It's an unfortunate truth, but conservatives have to face reality here -- there is no hidden trove of right-leaning engineers waiting in the wings to take over.
ControlsFreak
1hr ago
Yes there is an over supply of residency spots
All I'm saying is that this is not demonstrated clearly by the data you cited. Is there some additional source of data to support this claim?
DTulpa
1hr ago
This is the stated theory. Does it actually work? Are they actually successful at drawing in a wider audience? And if so, is the incoming audience large enough to offset losses from the previous one?
I've never been convinced on this.
ArmedTooHeavily
1hr ago
Are you taking bets on any of this?
Adding a [certain style of] women or similar is a very low effort way to make a game more appealing to a wider audience
I don't think that's the case. Rather, I think it's a low effort way to convince oneself that the game is more appealing to a wider audience, assuming that the oneself in this case buys into a certain ideology. The question then becomes why so many decisionmakers buy into this ideology, to such an extent that it overrides their greed.
2rafa
1hr ago
Larry Fink has no major politics beyond being a mainstream Democrat, at most he’s a centrist neolib. He strongly resisted almost all activist demands for Blackrock to divest from arms companies and fossil fuels firms. Blackrock isn’t primarily or even substantially responsible for DEI in corporate America and its influence on firm culture at board level is minimal. Fink is likely in the 65th percentile, no more, on the right-left scale among Americans. ESG was always a fake movement and the amount of money invested in ESG-focused funds, while high in nominal terms, was tiny compared to aum in the global asset management industry. What little was done was often under pressure from big institutional investors who do care, mainly universities and progressive pension plans (like teachers and academics), along with some progressive sovereign funds like the Norwegians. Blackrock promoted ESG under pressure from these institutional clients, not because of Fink’s own politics.
07mk
1hr ago
There's a common refrain among the "woke" that all art is political/ideological, and if you don't notice it in some work of art, then that's just because it's pro-status quo, and you're just comfortable with the status quo. What I've come to realize is that, buying into this framework, art that is political/ideological in the pro-status quo perspective is better than other art. Not categorically or anything like that, but that a work of art having a pro-status quo political/ideological message is something that meaningfully improves that work of art compared to the alternative of it having some non-status-quo (i.e. overtly noticeable) political/ideological message.
2rafa
1hr ago
AI, mass immigration and cultural fragmentation, the power of political Islam, low birth rates, the risk of biologically engineered pandemics, the effect of social media on population psychology. Not stuff most high schools are going to want you to spend all your time discussing in class.
DiscourseMagnus
1hr ago
The emerging second Cold War?
gog
1hr ago
What are the "world issues" of our age?
I am a high school social studies teacher (lame) and our curriculum is very old. As such, it is adamant that kids learn about the AIDS crisis, SARS, the Millennium poverty reduction goals, UN peacekeeping, third-world debt and the IMF, etc. It's all very Naomi Klein, Michael Moore-type stuff, and feels like teaching in 1992 with books written during the Cold War.
Most of those issues are still around, but they are obviously no longer as relevant to the globally-minded. Other than stuff like SARS, which has an obvious analog in COVID, what issues SHOULD we talking about. In 2007 you could pretty easily list the things that were considered "world issues" by the bien-pensant class. Has wokeism bulldozed all that? Are there constituencies out there who are still worried about this type of stuff? If so, what are they worrying about?
The first and only one that comes to mind is Katawa Shoujo, a hentai visual novel made by a bunch of people from 4chan, based off of a page of sketches of a bunch of disabled girls by a hentai artist named Raita. It's a basic dating sim style visual novel where the protagonist goes to a school for disabled people and can bed girls who are deaf, blind, lacking legs, lacking arms, or just has severe burns over most of her body. It's quite good and was well received and, IIRC, had a Steam release in the last year (all versions of it are completely free, AFAIK).
More options
Context Copy link