Commenter Archive

AvatarComments by Jaybird

On “Harsh Your Mellow Monday: Your Premise Is Bad Edition

Oh jeez. I missed that.

And there don't seem to be full games from the era on the youtube.


The New York Times has reported on Dick Uihlein being a funder:

Critics have asked who is funding the site, since ad revenue alone wouldn’t be enough to sustain its staff of 14 and political websites often rely on wealthy donors for support. The Federalist has not disclosed its supporters, leading to criticism that it is not being transparent about its agenda. But according to two people with knowledge of its finances, one of its major backers is Dick Uihlein, the Midwestern packing supply magnate and Trump donor who has a history of giving to combative, hard-right candidates, like Roy S. Moore of Alabama, who make many Republicans squeamish. (After Mr. Moore was accused of assaulting underage girls in 2017, The Federalist ran an opinion piece that defended men who dated young women as a practice with a long history that was “not without some merit if one wants to raise a large family.”)

Through a spokesman, Mr. Uihlein declined to comment.

Of course, you should read the story for yourself and come to your own conclusions.

On “For Want of a President: On the British Parliament and the Executive

The problem with Brexit is that so very many pieces of the stuff they were Brexiting from were never put up for a vote in the first place. The politicians were in charge of policy for the polity and everybody agreed to a Common Market in the 1970's. And then you've got a Single European Act which just makes sense and then there's the Schengen Agreement which required carve-outs to pass but, you have to understand, the cold war was at its height and compromises needed to be made. And then the Maastricht Treaty only had referendums from France, Denmark and Ireland. Huh. And then the Treaty of Amsterdam which didn't have a referendum.

And, next thing you know, you're in a place that you didn't recognize having agreed to go to.

Hey, my parents agreed to a common market.

While I am 100% down with the idea that it is the job of government to make some hard decisions ("we're here to do a job, not keep a job", as Pelosi famously said), if you make enough decisions without asking "the people" first, you're going to find yourself in a place where your vision of the future and theirs have diverged.

This is where "the consent of the governed" gets tricky. If you diverge far enough... then what?

I think a Constitution would be a Capital idea. Write it down.

Vote on it.

Get a majority this time. Preferably a super one.

On “Harsh Your Mellow Monday: Your Premise Is Bad Edition

The whole "starting a brawl before the national anthem" joke is one of the funniest hockey jokes of all time.

But its impact would be severely lessened if they didn't send the players out until after the anthem.

Now I have to do some independent research...

Found my answer.

The relevant portion starts here, at 2:46.

On “Saturday Morning Gaming: The Turn-Based vs. Real Time Debate and Missionforce Cyberstorm

Skyrim in VR is *AMAZING*. Holy crap, it's off the charts amazing. I very much dislike the whole "okay, now I'm fighting a spider the size of a VW Microbus" thing that happens occasionally (turns a fun adventure game into a horror game) but I did stuff like wander past a lake at night and there were fireflies flying over it and I got chills at how beautiful it was.

Throwing spells is a lot of fun too. You see your hand floating and you can pull the trigger and shoot lightning out of it. Or throw fireballs. As someone who preferred sword and shield in the console version, I went spellsword in the VR one.

Steam has a game called "The Lab". It's free! It has a collection of VR experiences more than games, really, but there are a couple of games in there that are absolutely awesome. And, hey, it's free. (Did I mention it's free?)

If you have someone else to play with, you need to get Keep Talking And Nobody Explodes. One person wears the VR helmet and disarms the bomb, the other person reads the bomb manual to them. (Absolutely an amazing party game and I recommend it wholeheartedly for that... I don't know if I recommend it as a Friday Night Date Night game.)

On “Harsh Your Mellow Monday: Your Premise Is Bad Edition

It's better to talk about arguments than to talk about people personally, I find.

Talking about the arguments might actually unearth something interesting.

Talking about the other people directly strikes me as not only Mean Girls-level bullshit but *OBVIOUS* Mean Girls-level bullshit and a huge amount of people who have directly experienced Mean Girls-level bullshit will immediately respond viscerally to it (consciously or unconsciously).


A good point. This is vastly superior to the "nobody worth listening to is arguing that Trump is going to get more then 240 EVs" thing that 2016 had going on.

That said, the narrative that we can trust the system and the narrative that we can't trust the system require two very different types of seeds to be sown and the "we can't trust the system" seeds are much, much stronger.

You don't want to have sown those if you end up winning.


From the greatest sports movie ever:

When I was a kid, the arcade had an industrial strength slide rod hockey game where red players would play against blue players (warning: PDF). The game started with the last two seconds of either the American or Canadian National Anthem (which could be ended prematurely by someone pressing the "boo" button). Less interesting to point out that the players were already on the ice for that, though.


Would you expect such people to have blind spots?


Do you support the idea of people commenting on what they read or, in your view, should they just keep it to themselves?


This reminds me of the essay that Scotto wrote about how the Electoral College could still be used to install a president other than Trump. You get California and New York to vote for Rick Perry and Texas follows suit.

Easy peasy.

But the problem with multiple defections in such a short amount of time is that while the incentives are there to collaborate if the other guy collaborates, there's no reason to believe that the other guy won't pull the football away. Freaking again.


Here's the part of the article that I read for myself:

That scenario seemed highly far-fetched, but it envisioned a situation in which both sides may have incentives to contest the election.

“There is a narrative among activists in both parties that the loss must be illegitimate,” he said.


So the Democrats played a game where they said that "We don't accept the results of the election" was seen as a good move?

Well, so long as they're saying "we don't accept the results of the election" for a good reason and not a bad one.


Maybe Biden can get all of the #neverTrumpers on board by taking a VP like Jared Polis or Joe Manchin.


Gotta say, "Remember 1948? We should do that!" is a better gameplan than "Remember 1968?"


Something I didn't know until recently:

The Robber's Cave experiment was actually *TWO* experiments.

The first one had this happen:

After losing a tug-of-war, the Pythons declared that the Panthers were in fact the better team and deserved to win. The boys concluded that the missing clothes were the result of a mix-up at the laundry. And, after each of the Pythons swore on a Bible that they didn’t cut down the Panthers’ flag, any conflict “fizzled”. By the time of the incident with the suitcases and the ukulele, the boys had worked out that they were being manipulated. Instead of turning on each other, they helped put the tent back up and eyed their “camp counsellors” with suspicion. “Maybe you just wanted to see what our reactions would be,” one of them said.

The counsellors refined their methods for the second experiment. The second one is the one that everybody knows about.

On “MovieBob Syndrome

I've seen a handful of his discussions of movies and some of them are pretty good. For example, he explained Sucker Punch to me. (Here was my take, a million years ago. Here's his.)

As criticism goes, I found it insightful. I understood the movie better after watching his take on it.

But then I read stuff of his like this:

And I find my jaw on the floor and my bile production increases and I get irrationally irritated and it can only be tempered by stuff like this:

And then I feel better.

On “Cornonavirus Outbreak Causes MLB to Suspend Games

To clarify: I wasn't comparing the covid to the black plague.

I was comparing the questioning the faiths of people.


I'm not saying that there's no reason to believe that maybe going to the Cathedral to pray to the Virgin Mary for deliverance in 1348 might have been a less than ideal way to deal with the Black Plague.

I'm just saying that, in 1348, I wouldn't have wanted to be one of the people arguing against it.

And would have quite enjoyed asking people to defend *NOT* doing it.

On “Weekend Plans Post: The Many Joys Of Self-Isolation

I went on a jog on the jogging route that has a hill at the halfway point. As I jogged up the hill, I said "oh my gosh! I'm out of breath! Surely this is the first stage of the covid!" and I turned around at the top of the hill and jogged back down and realized that, no, I'm just a chubby guy who jogs to get exercise and jogging up a hill is a good way to get out of breath, when you're chubby.

On “Saturday Morning Gaming: The Turn-Based vs. Real Time Debate and Missionforce Cyberstorm

I've never seen this... cool. Thank you.

(And my search tells me that Stoneshard is a turn-based Diablo II... huh. I'm on board.)


One of my friends had *TWO* computers in his house. So he was able to do 1-on-1 lan parties whenever he wanted.

He was the guy who, in any given tabletop game, was the guy who was going to win. Seriously, he was the one to beat. For the most part, I was content with this, because I got better playing against him and, because I got better, he got better playing against me. Iron sharpening iron and all that.

I figured out a way to beat him, though. I knew that he was going to go with a particular army that was his style and I pretty much always lost against him when I went head to head against that particular army with a similar one. He was just that good.

So I made an army of weenie mechs with self-destruct mechanisms. I sent in the first one and it died when shot against his unfired weapons that were still defending. I sent in the second one and it died. When I sent in the third one, all his guns had fired and I got in the middle of his formation and *KABOOM*.

As I was moving my fourth little weenie herc, he conceeded the game.

And that was the only Missionforce: Cyberstorm game I won against him.

But I still remember that fight fondly.

Seriously, it's a great game.

On “The Economics of Action Figures Part II: Contrived Scarcity

3D printers are changing a game here or there. Specifically, Games Workshop games. If you say "Oh, I'd like to purchase some Chaos Marines", you're quickly going to say "It costs $300 for a piddly 1000 point army?!?!?!?"

A 1kg spool of printer filament, by comparison, costs about 50 bucks.

On “Barbarians at the Gate: Credentialism and Loving Gatekeeping, Under Certain Circumstances…

I saw a lovely tweetstorm that discussed how "Capitalism" is merely another name for the market-based exchanges that have happened since forever.

It's like how bees make hives.

Arguing for Communism is like arguing that bees shouldn't make hives.

This isn't to say that the current system of cronyism is somehow optimized... of course, it isn't. And, indeed, the threat of Socialism (or the guillotine) has done a great job, historically, of bringing cronyism to heel.

But arguing that capitalism itself is bad misunderstands the whole "people exist because they get born, then they grow old, then they die" thing that all of us have going on.