I think what SatyrSack meant is that this offers no additional benefit to just storing the game files on a NAS. It makes more sense to have a dedicated server for streaming as you would then be able to enjoy the same copy everywhere, but with games you would have to download it again anyway so why don’t you cut the middleman and download directly from your NAS/storage system or even the original source.

That happens on the server side and how the owner of the site configured it. Some sites would redirect you to the www subdomain. If you go to “example.com”, it (example.com) would redirect you to “www.example.com”. The www part is not assumed and not automatically added by your browser as is the case “with http”. And you can in fact have your server redirect connections to something other than the www subdomain or not redirect at all, you can also not have a www subdomain at all, but these are usually considered bad practices for public facing sites.

Edit: the opposite is also possible and happens some times, where “www.example.com” would just redirect to the main domain “example.com”. This is usually done for backwards compatibility since a lot of people would assume www is necessary and type it out even if it doesn’t exist.

The difference between when MY Linux laptop has been running for a while (multiple days) and recently restarted is very noticeable. All the quirks disappear and everything is slightly smoother, and also for some reason I get faster WiFi?

unlucky

I don’t think it’s unlucky just stupid. In bdsm we have something called RACK (risk aware consensual kink) where before a scene or activity you have to study risks, anatomy, and physiology as deeply as you can and then do negotiations with your partner where you discuss all the risks and establish safe words and alternative non-verbal cues, and everything that could go wrong and the protocol that will be followed if it does go wrong, while changing things and substituting some aspects with others that would achieve the same goal but more safely.

You also generally don’t participate in extreme activities with a new partner especially if someone is inexperienced.

When I was a kid physical gift cards where the only way I could pay for online games since my nobody at home had a credit card that accepts international transactions.

I’m starting to think that no place is left that isn’t turning into a shit hole.

It’s hypocrisy. When the morality and logic behind your ideas is inherently flawed then hypocrisy is fair play and sometimes even a necessity for survival.

In the long run I don’t think it would matter that much. They would just move it elsewhere potentially in someone’s else backyard but the infrastructure will still run by you and the effects/consequences are still the same. A nice looking backyard doesn’t matter when everything around it is on fire.

Well the thing is no empire truly fall. They leave behind, a seed, a catalyst for the next empire. If not destroyed then you’re still in the cycle and hope becomes temporary.

I call it the grow-explode-grow theory

A powerful kingdom turns into a tyrannical empire. Empires grow and exploit others till they collapse due to too much power concentration and fewer people benefiting from it. Then smaller kingdoms and republics are built on the ruins of empires. The cycle repeats. It depends on which unfortunate part of the cycle you happened to exist. Also with modern globalisation and capitalism it seems the different parts of the world are now in sync with each other which makes “the empires” even stronger but their eventual collapse more detrimental.

Working is not giving back to society when most of us work for corporations and millionaires who’s entire purpose is to exploit said society. This fact might have been less obvious than it’s now especially when young people don’t feel their work is respected or appreciated in this system anymore.

It’s not that society inherently sucks but it has been plagued by systems of oppression and exploitation for so long that it needs emergency surgery.

Is it me or does this feel very 18th century vibes with a 20th century nationalist flavour?

Invading people homes and locking them up, forced displacement (“deportation” ), setting up “return hubs” which to me sounds awfully similar to a slave trade route resting spot. I thought it was established that mass human trafficking and raiding homes are bad.

I wouldn’t say I want the pre-internet world but I would definitely want the early-internet world. It used to be the best of both worlds before corporational greed and governmental control took over the entire internet. The internet was just this useful communication tool that happened to have some other niche uses like forums and archives.

Not 90s but the 2000s in the middle east (keep in mind the same technology was released here at a similar time but adoption was slower due to prices and companies at the time not knowing how to market their products in non-western markets)

I have older siblings and younger siblings and I want say me and my friends in the same age group exist in this weird transitional generation. We are too young to have embraced the optimism and hope of the older generations but we are too old to have just accepting the current status quo as how we found the world to be.

As a child I have used the entire progression of the telephone. I have used landline, dumb Nokia phones, blackberry, smart Nokia phones, and Samsung smart phones. I remember watching both satellite TV and YouTube Minecraft let’s play as a kid. My dad used to take family pictures using both a film camera and a digital camera. I remember when we had to go out I would schedule the VHS recorder (or whatever it’s called in English) to record my favourite cartoon tv show.

But what I believe is the most impactful aspect is the politics. I can clearly remember the Arab Spring (a series of revolutions in 2011). I was too young to understand it at the time but I sure have felt this feeling hope, optimism, and freedom in everyone around me just to realise when I grew up that we’ve lost.

Also LLMs and AI became a thing while I’m in the middle of university so I have seen how the concept of education slowly change from who learnt the skills better to who can make it the fastest with least tokens spent.

I’m also an introverted nerd so the moment I had internet access I was totally invested. I have seen how it turned from wholesome (and totally not wholesome) forums, chatrooms, and personal blogs, to these gated gardens, to brainrot and then AI slop. And I miss just hanging around uninvited in a small niche online community and talking to people.

I think what would resonate with my age group and some older folks is the feeling and promise that certain things and the future will be ours when we grow up, just to loose it all before we had the chance to.

Actually the number of situations matches the number of “fuckin” and they ended with a “fuckin” not a situation/question so "fuckin"s follow the the questions and not precede them. What might have confused you is the fact that the first time was not formatted as a question but rather a conditional statement describing a situation, and also the very fucked up use of punctuation.

I don’t believe LLMs are inherently evil. They can in some situations be the right tool to use. Unfortunately they came in a time where technical literacy was already declining and was also pushed by greedy corporations and investors. It’s no the tool but rather how or by whom it’s being used that’s the problem.

If we start treating it like the auxiliary tool it’s instead of the primary developer, writer, and manager, it becomes just another tool to support the process instead of replacing human skill and critical thinking. Just like how the computer and calculators did not replace professionals but made them more efficient, or how the internet and stack overflow didn’t replace problem solving and critical thinking but made the process faster and gave you time to focus on more important tasks.

Coming back to OPs analogy, cars aren’t inherently evil but it’s the culture associated with them. With the right adaptation, technology, and infrastructure they can be a very amazing tool without replacing walking or human skill. If you’re concerned about the environment we can find sustainable solutions (EVs), if you’re concerned about loosing the human aspect you can find a human-first solution (infrastructure that rewards walking and public transport for short travel but allows car for long-distance or in emergency).

The issue is not with the technology itself but how we’ve been using it and how greedy individuals are pushing the unhealthy version for their own benefits despite a healthy adoption being possible.

I have a 5 years old laptop and was planning on building a home pc but I can’t afford this shit now. I’m still planning on it but now I have to wait till I save enough money to even be able to enter a store.

It must not be a bluff. If Putin doesn’t accept my proposal, the UK and France must send troops into Ukraine.

I agree but unfortunately it’s not happening at least for now.

War would be costly, but sending weapons to Ukraine is straining Europe economies and what would Europe do if Putin is on the verge of victory?

Unfortunately people don’t usually tend to plan for the long run especially when the outcome is not fully known yet. That’s why when we have the knowledge and technology to mitigate climate change and a lot of diseases, we have done so little compared to what we could be doing despite that the cost is lower than the total cost of damages in the future. If people in power think the cost is too high right now to be worth it, then the change becomes too slow, this is true especially when these people are of the older generations where the future outcome won’t effect them like it would do to younger generations.

People are willing to change if it makes sense.

True but that change faces high resistance from some groups and the system itself, and thus sometimes it’s decided that it’s not worth the backlash, the risk, and the cost even if everyone will benefit at the end.

I’m not saying change doesn’t happen what I’m trying to say is that it’s slow, hard and face resistance which only discourage it if it doesn’t have short term instant results. For representative democracies war doesn’t make since since the damage is short term while the benefits are long term which is the opposite of votes depends on. On the other hand, dictatorships don’t care about votes it only cares about the benefits for the rulers, therefore if they will have direct benefits they can just go for it.

You will only get war when the government no longer cares about it’s citizens and their votes (US), or the ideological and strategic benefits are too good to pass (Israel) or there is absolutely no choice.

many countries have accepted but

True but I believe it’s more of a survival decision for some countries. For example where I live the government accepted refugees only because it meant they would get aid money and donations. For some western and European countries I believe it’s their aging population. The pension system became too expensive when you had more older individuals and less young people of working age. Immigration was a temporary fix to delay the eventual collapse of the welfare capitalist system due to the changing demographics.

some European countries have allowed a flood of migrants resulting in an increase in crime and fears that the cultural identity of the country will be changed.

This is my point. Even when lots of people accepted it still faced backlash and resistance from day one that has only increased ever since. This delayed establishing better systems and laws to allow integration and benefits for both native citizens and immigrants only making the situation worse and as a result hurting genuine hard working people who were willing to integrate.

It’s also worth noting that there are no strict rules when it comes to politics or sociology but rather a general tendency.

Your English is very good.

Thanks I appreciate it.

Reality is much more nuanced but on average for representative democracy keeping the status quo is the safest policy. That’s why change is painstakingly slow in any direction. This is usually because the masses are either too polarised and/or fragmented that any change would cause too much heat. And/or people generally do be afraid of change and what the future holds. It’s simple human nature, that’s why we like to hold onto old items and why we enjoy nostalgia.

A representative democracy must be in touch with what people want

That’s an ideal scenario but personally I believe the modern systems of democracy in western societies are objectively too flawed for this scenario to occur and even when it does I don’t believe it’s sustainable. That’s why I think direct democracy and direct participation should be more ingrained in the culture.

What you say is idealistic and I do agree that it’s a good idea but reality is not a simulation and it’s definitely far from ideal. Politicians will always choose what’s best for them not for the people, sometimes that may align but it’s not a rule.

Putin won’t submit to Europe’s threat of war because he knows they’re bluffing and it’s true. European leaders have no real intentions of going directly into war. War is a too much of a big risk for European governments. If you don’t get every citizen in your country on board with war then you risk discontent which is not good in a representative democracy. You also risk tanking the economy and with the current global situation in the last decade I don’t think there’s anyone left who is willing to or even can absorb the shockwaves of a such major event.

The increasing popularity of far-right parties in Europe is causing centrist parties to adopt some of their policies.

This does prove my point. The far-right feeds on fear and what’s more scary than change. Be it economical change, demographic, cultural, religious, political, or even aesthetic change. They all share the same populist line “everything right now is evil and we need to do things the old way”. That’s how they recruit members. And usually people go with it until it’s too late.

P.S. I apologise if my writing is a mess it’s too late rn and English isn’t my first language.

Dude do you seriously think people in power would solve this like mature adults? Representative democracy encourages maintaining the status quo since that’s better for votes than the risk of changing it. Dictatorship on the other hand encourages slow drainage and exploitation of resources and displays of power that’s how you prevent coups and foreign interference and keep your position.

In both cases it’s not the in the interest of governments to find the best solution that would benefit all parties.