Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - McTraveller

Pages: 1 ... 200 201 [202] 203 204 ... 222
3016
General Discussion / Re: Things that made you go "WTF?" today o_O
« on: December 28, 2017, 09:03:24 am »
I feel there is a conspiracy between the toy companies and battery companies.  All the kids' toys this Christmas take AAA batteries instead of AA or even C (even when the toy is definitely large enough to handle the larger battery size).

This means the batteries run out faster, meaning having to buy more batteries...

3017
General Discussion / Re: Star Wars [Warning: Spoilers inside!]
« on: December 28, 2017, 09:02:04 am »
@Ispil pretty much covered what I was going to write.  Lots of actual story progressing - it's also kind of ironic in that I think Kylo Ren spoke what is going to probably happen with the franchise, not just the story - getting rid of the "baggage" of the past.  It could go well or ill - it's actually kind of interesting to consider it "from that point of view."

I mean, Ep 7 was so couched "in the past" it was kind of painful.  Ep 8 explicitly said it: "Got to move on from the legend of Luke Skywalker, because riding that legend isn't enough."

Edit: sorry I got your name wrong initially!

3018
General Discussion / Re: Star Wars [Warning: Spoilers inside!]
« on: December 27, 2017, 09:01:23 am »
I finally saw Ep VIII last night.  Overall I happen to think it is actually one of the stronger movies, but not without its flaws.  I think it actually advances the story rather than just introduce new characters and give lip service to the previous generation.  There was enough real despair and underlying thread of the conflict between light and dark in each of us, and philosophical issues of "good and bad are made up words" that make the bigger story fairly compelling.  Even the campy lines about hope and suns and all that.  Personal sacrifice, giving up the momentary victory to save what you love instead of destroying what you hate - those are all pretty big themes that I think are often missed in western cultures these days - I mean, people don't even understand in world events why people would be willing to risk their lives for various ideals, let alone against helpless odds.  The stuff about arms dealers, too, that's a pretty heady thing to put in that movie.

I feel like the movie maybe could have had an even darker tone had it not been catering so much for kids, but it's not a bad balance.  As it was though - I'd have to consider when I'd take my kids to see it. Lots of people dying in that movie, even as "sanitized" as a ship going up in a ball of space-fire may be.


Some things to keep in mind though - it's obvious that Disney is making the series more aimed at a younger audience.  If you approach the series with that mindset a lot of things make a bit more sense.  Remember folks, the movie makers are not making the movie for current Star Wars fans so much as they are trying to make new lifelong Star Wars fans.  They are trying to get kids at younger ages.

That said, things I liked:

  • Actual new story progression.  Much more than the simple "let's introduce some new characters" of Ep VII, we had progression about the nature of the Force, etc.  For those of us who don't spend massive amounts of time in the EU for instance, this is welcome.
  • Aside from the technical issues, the cruiser lightspeed jump was one of the most visually stunning elements I've ever seen in a Star Wars movies.
  • I'm still not sure who these folks are saying there are no "wide shots" in this movie - there were actually way more than I was expecting.  Think of all the stuff at the Jedi temple complex where there is no or almost no dialog, just exposition of Luke's daily life through imagery.  There was basically no words at all with Luke's last moments, just shots of the suns-set.
  • Some character building of the main 4 - I thought it was pretty decent for each of them, working through the various situations.  You don't have to like the characters, but the way the development is done is actually better than most movies these days. And that's kind of scary/impressive.
  • Did that little kid at the very end force-pull the broom into his hand, or did I dream that?

My dislikes, and most of them are technical:

  • There were actually few instances of green-screen failure. By that I mean there was a discernible layering of the characters into their surroundings. The worst of these was during the hangar-in-flames fighting and escape of Fin and Rose.
  • The flight mechanics of ships in the Star Wars universe is baffling.  Why do ships require fuel to move at constant speed? Why do capital ships all seem to move at the same speed? That is - the Resistance fleet moves away from the New Order fleet initially to get range, but then the New Order fleet apparently keeps the same range from then out. This just suggests a response lag, not a difference in thrust / speed capability.  Small aside: why would a ship start drifting aimlessly just because it ran out of fuel?  Apparently this part of space is either dense fluid or uses Eve Online space mechanics.
  • Snoke really needed some development. First of all, a prosthetic costume or animatronic would have been way better than that CGI mess. Also, he's supposed to be this badass, but we only get a couple menacing holograms and one "in person" scene where he basically Dies of Hubris (there's probably a TVTropes for that).  No "mystery" like we had with the original Emperor, no real evidence of why people fear him other than his overt use of power, etc.  But where did he come from? You'd think if you had this many super-powerful dark side adepts around, they would be more obvious...
  • You can use a stampede as a story element, but having your heroes ride the stampeding animals is... reaching.  Plus the stampeding animals were a bit too emotive.  A horse is expressive, but doesn't have a simian face like whatever those were.  Somewhat related: I don't quite understand the little bird-things that Chewie befriended. They seemed kind of like fluff (see what I did there?)
  • Too much special effects money spent on odd choices - fix the greenscreen and get rid of that little greedy thing throwing coins around.

3019
General Discussion / Re: AmeriPol: Christmastime!
« on: December 26, 2017, 07:42:57 am »
Regarding healthcare inefficiency... that's kind of what I was hinting at by the "we don't have enough health care providers" comment.  Since prices are so high in the US, you'd think that more people would try to become providers and with more efficiency to reap more of that massive revenue stream.

A combination of many factors, however, means this isn't possible. The mandatory and de-facto paperwork requirements and the excessive education / certification requirements alone contribute to a massive barrier to entry that reduces the overall count of new providers and limits the productivity improvements available to all providers (new or old).

Note that isn't limited to direct care providers either - it also covers pharma and medical device manufacturers as well.  Pharma companies, for instance, couldn't increase prices on existing products tens-fold if there was a market with low entry barriers.

3020
General Discussion / Re: AmeriPol: Christmastime!
« on: December 25, 2017, 12:45:28 pm »
This quote from that UN article explains my main beef with all things health care in the US, and why I was personally opposed to trying to fix health care through making insurance more affordable/accessible:

"US health care expenditures per capita are double the OECD average and much higher than in all other countries. But there are many fewer doctors and hospital beds per person than the OECD average."  (emphasis mine)

Trying to solve health care from the demand side, by making insurance more affordable, will never bring costs down if we don't address the lack of health care providers.

Same as most other 'social' programs - you can't solve them merely by giving people more dollars, you have to also increase the ability to provide goods and services you want people to be able to buy with those dollars.  The US is really bad at this one - if you just give people money to spend on rent without changing local zoning laws and the way property taxes are assessed to allow for a larger number of property owners and developers. What we have now often just encourages a few massive property owners, which captures the local housing market and just facilitates (heh) rent-seeking.

3021
General Discussion / Re: AmeriPol: Christmastime!
« on: December 24, 2017, 08:14:52 am »
So on this fine Christmas Eve, reading here many complaints about American society... what would you folks envision as a more desirable end state, specifically?  What would make you all feel at peace with yourself and your neighbor?

More relevant, perhaps, what can you do, today, to help bring peace to your neighbors and yourself?  Even if only in small ways.

3022
Yeah, it's a shame that there is not better correlation between the "physical" economy and the "financial" economy.  They are different things, and it seems that the physical economy, which should lead the financial one, is instead often led by the financial one.  It's very backwards.

My basic example is of our most recent recession - it was wholly a financial bookkeeping thing.  The day after the crisis, we still had the same population, physical infrastructure, same education level, same number of people providing services, etc.  There was no "physical" reason why the downturn occurred - it was only a financial artifact that cascaded into real physical issues later.

I don't care if it was by happenstance or by design, the fact that essentially people just declared a disaster by changing some numbers in some databases is actually more disturbing to me than use of physical weapons.

3023
Regarding SS:  SSI is not an investment, at least not in the traditional sense.  It's basically forced savings, and the "investment" is in aggregate stability of the retired/disabled population rather than in some productive enterprise.  It's much closer in operation, as others have said, to insurance.  The payment mechanisms and the growth of the trust fund are the same as with any insurance scheme - the people paying premiums are a statistical minority of those drawing benefits, and the difference is invested to grow.  The history behind SSI and FDIC is entirely rooted in the Great Depression and the aftermath, including the dust bowl - it wasn't just the financial bits.  The sad thing is that probably 50% of the effects of the Great Depression were self-inflicted.

Regarding generational stuff:  I'm actually personally very puzzled by the claim that Gen-X and later "just purely have no opportunity for a successful living".  This must be highly dependent on geography or demographics or something, because my peer group (born late 70's, early 80's, smack at the GenX/Millenial transition) are essentially all yuppies - but we also all went into engineering or medicine.  I don't know how much of that was just luck of our interests or the opportunities/families we had growing up or or own personal work ethic or what.  Part of it too I think is that none of us are risk-takers; we are all fairly conservative financially so have low debt loads (most of us that have debt, it's limited to a mortgage).

Are we really just a statistical anomaly? Are we just so used to what's around us we don't see that there really aren't opportunities?  Are those who feel there are no opportunities so used to what's around them they don't see the opportunities that are there?  Some combination of both?

3024
Too bad I have to go into the office today... so much to discuss....

Partly, I am definitely in the camp that thought those scooters were medicare, not SS, but maybe I was wrong...  Also note that medicare withholding in taxes is not capped like FICA.

Anyway.... later....

3025
It's not just a generational shift in politics - it's a generational shift in everything.  Age distribution has a massive impact on absolutely everything.

3026
I wouldn't say that Vox is a very tempered source of information though - they seem to be very sensationalist (and they definitely don't hide their bias).  That sounds a bit chicken little to me - we've been teetering on the razor edge between wreckage and prosperity for a long time*.

Also, I really, really wish people would be able to separate fiscal conservatism / liberalism from social conservatism / liberalism and corporate conservatism / liberalism.

Personally I'm fiscally conservative, socially kind of middle of the road, and align more with the liberals when it comes to corporate dealings like antitrust but not everything; for instance I prefer the goals of the liberals when it comes to things like environment but I dislike their methodology.

*It's also like climate change: some people will fall toward wreckage, some will prosper - so crying "total destruction" is not really recognizing the nuances of the situation, and generally just serves to further polarize the population instead of trying to get people to work together.  I hate these "let's blame group X" headlines - even if that group does have the majority share of the blame, work to fix it not just increase the division...

3027
A change away from first past the post will certainly help. Allowing third parties to actually be competitive would also go a ways towards helping.

Anyhoo, the tax bill passed the House (for the second time) and is en route to Trumps desk.

Sounds like they're going to do a continuing resolution to push it to Jan. 19th, but no guarantee.

How would changing from first-past-the-post voting help?  Allowing "third parties" isn't going to do anything if the third parties are in a minority - because they will have to side with the polarizing dominant parties.  You'd have to get enough alternative viewpoints in there to form a powerful enough bloc to make a difference and moderate things, rather than just be the few individuals who get to name their price for voting along one of the other party lines.

Or am I just being too pessimistic?

3028
Virginia House of Delegates seat goes to the Democrats by margin of a single vote, ensuring the legislature as a whole will be either tied or Democratic depending on the outcome of the other two recounting seats.

But voting doesn't matter.
I'm not sure that's good or bad though.  When you have a vote like 11,608 to 11,607 and you get a massive shift in potential policy because of it, that's not really that great.  What that vote says is that, on average, the population is fairly split on what they want - but then you get a significant change in the results based on that small delta.

Even when it came to the national election, and the popular vote was split, what, 48-52 or whatever it was... that just exacerbates the "tipping point" philosophy where a very small minority can effect massive changes in outcome.  Same thing when you get senate votes 51-49.

The population at large is really not as polarized as politics make it seem.  Instead it's polarized because a small relative difference in votes often makes such a massive difference in policy - it's inherently a very unstable system.  I don't even think a change away from first-past-the-post will fix this; it is going to take something much more dramatic.

3029
@Sheb, yeah, I don't know how to make that one "continuous" - the idea is, how do you avoid a disincentive for a small but growing company to grow past that threshold?  I mean if your company can pull in revenue of $200k an employee, but adding that next employee is going to cost you $1M, why would you ever do it?  It means you have to be able to have the business to add probably something like 15 additional employees to cover the incremental cost of that regulation to make it worthwhile. So you have this weird deadband in the growth curve where you have a bunch of businesses with 50 employees, almost none with between 51 and 64, then a bunch at 65 and larger.

You might not be able to do it on the paperwork side, but you could surely put a continuity function in the level of benefits you offer. So instead of saying "at 50 or fewer employees, you can have plans that cost X, but at 51 or more you need plans that cost X+Y" so the price of adding that next employee is 50*Y + (X+Y), not just X+Y.

3030
Bucketloads of ways to make things better, really, with few to none being a knockout and many helping.
Specific examples would be nice.

For instance, I would say things like:

  • No more brackets for things, for instance "you get $500 a month in support if your income is below X, but $0 a month if it's X+$0.01".  We have computers dammit, just make things a continuous function. You'd ideally want the function (whatever it is) to always make it better to earn an additional dollar of income than lose an additional dollar of income.  Hell just "your benefit is max(0,$500 - 1/2 your income)" would be simple and have those properties.
     1/2 your income
  • No more allowing benefits as an "all or nothing" thing based on "if you work at this single employer more than X hours a week". Similar to above, have it be a sliding scale where you get some benefit per hour worked, no "on/off" switches.  If this means separating (health, retirement, etc.) benefits from employment, that's probably not a bad thing.
  • While on the health care thing - get rid of crap like "if you have a company with less than 50 people these rules apply, but as soon as you add one more person and get to 51, then this massively larger and more expensive set of rules applies."
  • Make things like mortgage insurance benefit the consumer, not the lender.  Or do something else that makes it far less likely for people to lose their homes if they lose a job for a short period of time.  Even a 15 year mortgage is a ridiculously long time to pay for something, let alone 30.

Pages: 1 ... 200 201 [202] 203 204 ... 222