Mods are great and all, but they’re mods. The default setting, despite being called Cyberpunk, doesn’t respond as a Cyberpunk setting should in response to many possible variations of V.

I stopped bothering with mods a long time ago, because I’ve found they’re often too frustrating for me to be worth it. They break with updates, they don’t play nice with each other, they often clash with the core storyline in unexpected ways, and they can annoying to install, and all of this has become more true since I moved to linux.

I think I’d love something like that first mod you mentioned if it were part of the base game, both because it sounds more fun and because it’s truer to the genre the game is named after, but it’s not enough to get me to install it and do another run through.

You’re not wrong, but that’s kind of a plot hole intrinsic to virtually all video games with combat.

Not if they’re turn based :P

That causes different issues.

It’s cyberpunk. You’re meant to have aim assist, hit confirmation, damage estimators etc. You’re cybered, you’re half machine, and losing your humanity to the machine to get those advantages is a core part of the setting aesthetic. Or alternatively, you don’t get cyber, and you don’t lose yourself to the machine, but then you struggle to survive when dealing with those who have. You see this play out in extremes in the cyberpsycho story arcs.

A cybered up merc is meant to be a small shark in an ocean of piranhas. An ocean where there are larger sharks, but also killer whales. A cybered up merc is meant to be a threat to most people on the street. But a gang of partly and non cybered folk should be a threat to the merc too. Maybe a merc could get lucky and tear up a gang by themself, but it would leave a power vacuum, and disturb a lot of people who had deals with that gang. It would be a story in and of itself. And any merc that kept killing wiping out entire gangs would eventually take a wrong step, and end up dead, or if they were good enough to not get killed by the gangs, they’d find themselves with a bullet in the back of the head, being put down by the corps who rely on the status quo in the streets to make their money.

The point being, the cyberpunk setting itself is not designed to be home to mass slice and dice combat. The slicers and dicers are the people who have lost themselves to the machine completely, the psychos that need to be put down.

tl;dr - Changing the difficulty wouldn’t resolve my main issue with the game

What I struggle with with the game is that it’s meant to be punk. It’s easy to die. A dude with a gun can kill no matter who you are.

Instead, you’re an invincible death/hacking machine. You can mow through mooks in a way that should completely and utterly reshape the whole criminal underworld, but instead, is treated as if it’s just any other day.

The power levels are wrong for the aesthetics of the setting

You’ll need to talk to @Cyb3rSh0nker@lemmy.blahaj.zone. I’ve added them as a mod, so it’s up to them as the active mod!

I’m a vegan. When i see people eating beef, I don’t claim “either you like hurting cows, or you’ve been duped by people who hate animals”.

I’m not a vegan or even a vegetarian, but I wouldn’t argue with you if you made that claim, because the only reason we as a society eat as much meat as we do, is because it’s normalised at every level for economic reasons.

If I can manage that, you can manage to not argue with trans people trying to deal with the active and ongoing exclusion they face.

For what it’s worth, I don’t give a shit about “fairness” in sports.

Then why the fuck are you even in this discussion, arguing with people trying to defend a highly marginalised section of the community?

If you “don’t care”, then dropping it so as to not be part of the active exclusion of trans people would be the appropriate move.

I wasn’t talking about attraction as such. Like, I won’t date people who don’t identify with queerness in some way. I’m not “queersexual” but rather, it’s a personal preference and understanding of my own needs that influences who I date above and beyond who I’m attracted to. My last boyfriend for example, I was attracted to him romantically and sexually, but he wasn’t queer, and I felt like my queerness was invisible when I was with him. And so after we broke up, I decided that I won’t enter another relationship like that.

And similarly, there are people who are technically bisexual, but who won’t date men, despite having attraction, even romantic attraction to them.

It doesn’t matter to me what words other people to describe themselves

That’s the important part!

What it definitely doesn’t include by definition of the word is people who are totally outside of the binary spectrum.

It does though.

This is a quote from the bisexual manifesto, back from 1990

Bisexuality is a whole, fluid identity. Do not assume that bisexuality is binary or duogamous in nature: that we have “two” sides or that we must be involved simultaneously with both genders to be fulfilled human beings. In fact, don’t assume that there are only two genders. Do not mistake our fluidity for confusion, irresponsibility, or an inability to commit. Do not equate promiscuity, infidelity, or unsafe sexual behavior with bisexuality. Those are human traits that cross all sexual orientations. Nothing should be assumed about anyone’s sexuality, including your own.

I completely understand that you may be uncomfortable with the term yourself, and I’m not suggesting that you need to use it. But the term was inclusive of non binary people from before many people using the internet today were even born. You can’t assume that someone using the term is exclusive of non binary folk.

I can genuinely say that I’ve never met a bisexual person who is explicitly only interested in men and women. I mean, I’ve ran across them online, but the people that I’ve actually met and spoken to in person? Not a single one has used the label in an exclusionary way.

And like any term with problematic, out of date origins, there is power in reclaiming it.

All of which is to say, you can’t tell people that an identity they’ve been using in an inclusive way for literally decades is actually exclusive just because you personally aren’t comfortable with it.

For what it’s worth, I feel similar about the term transsexual. It’s a term that in modern usage, has a good chance of meaning that the person labelling themselves that way is a transmedicalist, with exclusionary beliefs about who is and isn’t transgender. I don’t label myself transsexual because of that discomfort with the word. But I also know people who came out as trans decades before I did, who use the label because that was the language at the time they came out. They’re not automatically transmeds themselves, and I don’t get to tell them that they need to redefine their identity for my comfort.

Bisexuality is inclusive of non binary folk. The name predates widespread awareness of gender experiences outside the binary, but the even back nearly 40 years ago, the bisexual manifesto was quite clear that bisexuality includes folk whose gender falls outside the binary.

That doesn’t mean you need to use the label for yourself, but it’s important to recognise that the label itself isn’t inherently exclusive

Sure, but bi carries an implication that you’re open to dating across the gender spectrum. If you’re not open to dating men, even if you’re attracted to them, then some people feel that the bi label doesn’t fit, even if it’s technically correct.

I just call myself queer.

Physically, I’m attracted to men more than I’m attracted to women. But romantically, I can be attracted to anyone that labels themselves queer.

Which means I mostly end up dating queer women. I don’t feel that bi or gay sum up my experience. So I just call myself queer

At about a B1 level. And I specifically speak that variety of Spanish (rioplatense)

I’ve previously lived (short term) in Buenos Aires for a few months as well

I’ve half heartedly been planning a move to Argentina for years now, but Argentina is currently not really a viable option. So as we’re getting closer to it being real rather than just vague plans, we started looking for other options. And Uruguay is a pretty good alternative. And it’s right next door to Argentina :)

Close. Uruguay :P

I don’t think enough people realize that this is catastrophically bad. It’ll discourage people from becoming open source developers, it’ll discourage people from using Linux, and it’ll discourage legislators from taking the Linux community seriously.

Sure, but personally, I don’t want a linux community that’s driven by corporate needs and governments that have been paid off by them. I don’t view it as a catastrophe, if that’s the version of “the linux community” that we lose.

None of that is to say that harassing devs is correct. It’s not, and never is. Harassing anyone with death threats and dogpiling is not on. But if we take that out of the picture, negative pushback that drives away devs that would otherwise have helped implement universal age gating isn’t something I’m terribly upset over, because I don’t want the version of community they’re taking us towards

To quote @supakaity in a conversation we just had “Thank fuck we’re getting out of here”

I do. We’re on it already. The whole system is slipping towards an age gated internet, and there is nothing we can do to stop it. That’s the slope. There’s nothing I can do to stop it, whether I’m I stay on or get off.

I don’t believe that dropping my whole OS over a database field will change anything. It won’t stop the devs who are concerned about their legal liability from being doing what they need to do to protect themselves. Some devs will comply, some will walk away from OSS, and some won’t comply. But the bigger the project, the more corporate sponorship it relies on, the more certain it is going to be in the “comply” category, and the truth of that won’t change because users push back.

Which is to say, I don’t believe standing up and rejecting a DB field as a matter of principle will change anything, except to make my life harder.

My line in in the sand isn’t about changing the course of the path we’re on, it’s about my own personal interactions with the system. And being forced to provide my age to interact with the internet is the bit I won’t do. So I will stay with the inevitable creep towards that state until the last possible moment, in the hopes that somehow, I’m wrong, and we avoid this privacy nightmare we’re heading towards. If and when it becomes impossible to interact without providing that data, then that’s where I step off, even if it costs me half the internet.

They’re not the same though. Your method will enable the system to interact meaningfully with an age gated internet. Blank will not. And I won’t be interacting with an age gated internet…