So, I went down a weird rabbit hole a few months back and discovered that there are gamers pursuing a level of depravity that I want expecting. There are open-source mods for some competitive multiplayer games that control sex toys.

… Hydrogen cyanide is literally what has been used to execute people in gas chambers and genocide during the Holocaust. The LC(Lo), the lowest recorded lethal concentration is 107ppm, resulting in death in 10 minutes. That’s, objectively, far more dangerous than the respective material that firefighters were exposed to at Chernobyl. You don’t want that in any appreciable quantity in the air around people that you want to continue living.

So what it’s really like is only having to do half the work?

If it’s automating the interesting problem solving side of things and leaving just debugging code that one isn’t familiar with, I really don’t see value to humanity in such use cases. That’s really just making debugging more time consuming and removing the majority of fulfilling work in development (in ways that are likely harder to maintain and may be subject to future legal action for license violations). Better to let it do things that it actually does well and keep engaged programmers.

Absolutely there with you. Hence my suggestion of thrift store.

And for wearing one to the office? I also work from home so, would only likely do so to confuse my wife.

There are certainly places where BusyBox makes a lot of sense. Could you give some examples of where you’re seeing it out of place?

I’m excited to see more once it becomes available. Have already added to wishlist. A couple of thoughts, similar to what some others have voiced:

• Animations are not everything or enough to make a good game. However, attention to detail in animations is a big plus in my book, regardless of graphical quality. It is something that I tend to notice and appreciate.

• Mechanics are fundamental to any game, physical or digital. There’s two diametrically opposed directions that I’ve seen that result in enjoyable games:

1. Mechanics that are optimized for enjoyment rather than strict realism. People play games for entertainment. If a mechanic is extremely frustrating, it will likely cause people to lose interest even if it is extremely realistic. In this approach, such mechanics are tuned or dropped to ensure that the player experience is as good as it can be.

2. Mechanics that are optimized for realism to an excessive degree, with enjoyable gameplay taking a backseat. This is likely to result in a smaller, cult following as many will get frustrated and move on. A good example of this is Dwarf Fortress with its unofficial slogan of “Losing is Fun”.

I would strongly suggest leaning towards the former as the latter is a really hard target to hit and the cult following for a game that does hit #2 perfectly may also be delayed until long after release.

• Graphical quality can be very overrated. An enjoyable game with terrible graphics and animation may be very replayable while one with stunning visuals and terrible gameplay may be a flash in the plan that is quickly forgotten. I highly recommend ensuring that graphics are well-optimized so as to allow stutter-free gameplay on even low spec machines, if settings are sufficiently reduced.

Keep up the good work and I look forward to seeing your future progress.

Yeah that will work on Linux too.

THANK YOU!!! I was just going to ask about this.

I think that she prefers “Academy Award-nominated character actor, and producer Margot Robbie”.

I cannot agree enough with this statement and especially love your closing. We definitely don’t tend to be able to take enough time to really care for ourselves and try and fail at new things.

I, for one, do like to iron. I’d probably not like it if it was mandatory for all clothing though. What really has happened is societal changes leading to much more casual attire expectations (not that we could afford to dress like previous generations) alongside advancements in textile technology that have resulted in garments less likely to show wrinkles.

Give it a try. Hit up a thrift store and get some great tacky suits from the 70s and 80s, if you can find em. It’s a bit of fun to wear them when it’s not necessary or expected. I probably wouldn’t wear a really nice wedding/funeral suit in such cases because I spill fucking everything and would become destitute from the dry cleaning bills.

Now, if it were a social expectation/requirement, it would suck and not be fun. But, as a choice that one can make, it’s great sometimes.

Fuck yes it is. I think I’ve ironed more this century than my Boomer mother. And none of it was out of necessity.

After working as a farm hand one summer, it was like a switch flipped in my head and I really started to like button-ups and the like. Probably something along the lines of “this clothing is completely different from my work clothing and doesn’t have animal shit on it”.

No-iron shirts and slacks are still the way to go but, getting those wrinkles that escape is just so satisfying.

Yeah… I’m pretty sure you need an iron for those. A decent iron can probably do everything that a hand steamer can so, might as well just go with a nice iron.

You’re very welcome! Also, look at the shape of handguns prior to the advent of self-contained cartridges. They also tend to have a curve to them for the same reasons. You may also see a tendency in modern large-frame revolvers and some 20th century combat revolvers to sometimes have a straighter grip. The goal there being to make re-acquiring the target for a follow-up shot faster. The former use the mass of the gun and sometimes advanced elastomers to soak up some of the recoil, while the later used the mass of the gun and not giving a fuck about the soldier firing it for that purpose.

Columbine happened when I was a kid and nothing of any substance has been done since.

It’s even better at seeming knowledgeable about things that it may or may not be knowledgeable about.

Very good questions. While I’m a pacifist, I know a lot about firearms, how they mechanically work, etc (likely an “on the spectrum” thing as a direct sibling has an autism diagnosis).

One of the important aspects of technique of firing a gun is the hold. Handguns are held differently from rifles and different types of handguns, sometimes even models of the same category, must also be held differently. This is both for marksmanship and for safety. For example, holding a revolver like one holds most pistols puts the support hand in front of the cylinder, which can cause burns or potentially digit amputations (I’ve heard of but have but haven’t read any case studies of the later) due to hot gases and metal escaping from the gap between the cylinder and the barrel or holding many models of pistol too high on the backstrap is likely to cause the slide and/or hammer (if present) to “bite” the hand in the web between the thumb and forefinger. “Hammer bite” is painful but not usually a cause for great concern.

Bear with me (rawr) for a bit here because this stuff is relevant to your questions. Derringers, however, are notorious for a number of safety-related issues. First, they are small and seem unthreatening to those who are new to firearms. This is bad because they are also cheap and rather more prone to pose accidental dangers than other types of handgun.

Most basic Derringers are built cheap and simple. This means that, unlike modern revolvers, they rarely have mechanisms like a trigger safeties (mechanism that prevents the trigger from being pulled if a “sub-trigger” isn’t also pulled), safety switch/catch (“normal” safety mechanism found on pistols, rifles, and shotguns that prevents the mechanism from firing until switched to “fire”), or transfer bar safety (a relatively new safety mechanism that reduces the likelihood of a hammer-fired gun going off if dropped). Do note that none of these mechanisms are infallible (see: Tiger King for a disturbing example of a transfer bar failing to function). Additionally, Derringers frequently do not have trigger guards. Their cheap and handy size leads many new owners to put Derringers directly in their pockets, without a pocket holster (a vital piece of safety equipment for ALL pocket carrying). With their lack of safety mechanisms, this has led to numerous and not infrequently fatal unintentional discharges (self-inflicted severing of femoral artery).

In addition to all of these, Derringers are frequently hard to hold correctly, due to their compact size. My thoughts on possible injuries from the .45-70 Derringer in particular are mainly related to the recoil. Because there is only the mass of the Derringer and curved handle to mitigate the recoil would be one getting full-on punched in the hand.

The force is exerted along the bore axis (if you do the physics vector chart thingies, the arrows point straight back down the barrel). The handle has a curve to encourage it to roll but that first impulse is likely going to hit on the tiny bit of the arc furthest back before it starts to pivot. Without extra padding in gloves or another way to deflect, dissipate, or distribute that energy, fractures to hand bones are well within the range of possibility. There are further dangers of holding the firearm incorrectly, like getting smacked in the face and/or dropping it, which could lead to accidental discharge.

Overall, this firearm is a fabulously terrible idea.

That’s the beautiful thing about gifting software with permissive licenses (when one wants to): it’s a gift and anyone can do whatever they want with it for free.

ETA: I DO think that it is important for one who chooses to license software permissively to be informed about their decision and its implications. But, just like consent in other areas, as long as one enters into it intentionally and with the understanding of what the license means, it’s noone’s place to judge (and, like consent in other interpersonal areas, the license can be revoked/modified at any time - with a new version). Honestly, really weird of those that take issue with individuals choosing to gift their software to humanity - there’s way more interesting and useful things to engage in in the FLOSS landscape.

Really more of anachronistic 19th/20th century century jest. There are two components here. The handgun and the cartridge.

The your of handgun depicted is called a Derringer, which is typically a small, concealable gun that typically fires 2 shots before requiring reloading. Generally, Derringers fire small calibers because even something like a full 9mm will cause substantial recoil when there is no semi-automatic action or mass to absorb some of it. We’ll come back to the particular Derringer shortly.

The .45-70 is a copper-cased, centerfire rifle cartridge developed for the US military in the late 19th century. The full classification of the original load being .45-70-405. This meant a .45 caliber (11.4mm) nominal bore diameter, 70 grains (4.54g) of black powder, and a 405 grain (26.25g) projectile. At the time of its adoption, it was recorded as having an effective lethal range of 1,000yds (910m). In 1879, a 500 grain projectile variant was developed with a legal range of 3,500yds (3,200m) - just to repeat this craziness, in 1879, the US military created a blackpowder rifle round capable of causing lethal injuries to those 3.2km away.

In modern times, the .45-70-405 is considered sufficient to hunt all big game in North America, including grizzlies and polar bears.

Now, back to that firearm. It appears to be an American Derringer Model M-4 Alaskan Survival. I highly doubt that any of the designers for a moment thought “a .45-70 Derringer is a good idea” and instead likely made it for novelty or to see if it could be done. I found some fun data on the M-4. It has a 4.1" (104mm) barrel length and, firing a 300 grain projectile, exerts 76.18 ft•lbs (103.29 joules) of recoil energy on its user. By compare, a similarly sized Glock 19 9mm firing a 124 grain projectile exerts 5.77 ft•lbs (7.83 joules) and the iconic Magnum Research Desert Eagle in .50AE only exerts 25.46 ft•lbs (34.52 joules) with a 300 grain projectile. So, the risk of injury to the operator is likely rather high and the manufacture and sale is likely rather irresponsible.

…People who wanted to donate their software to the public with no strings attached could see an uptick in the number of users?