[-] skylestia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 7 months ago

but i don't want any where would i put it

[-] skylestia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Sorry for the confusion then! I suppose I place some value on life itself (or maybe more fitting in this discussion, on awareness itself)

Which is to say that for me, ending the life of a being who is aware is at least one of the worst things you can do. Like, if I were forced to choose between millions of years of suffering or immediate death, I'd probably pick the millions of years of suffering because at least I'd still be aware. Of course I might regret that decision later on but that's where I'm at right now. But also I couldn't imagine being tortured for millions of years and the toll that must have on someone. So torturing someone for millions of years has, for me, very similar moral weight to genocide. Again I don't feel able to quantify them personally, and for me deciding which is ultimately worse is probably not possible. I'd guess the answer would vary from person to person based on how they weigh life itself vs experiences in life, and whether the conscious experience of being tortured is worse in their opinion than not existing anymore. I consider life valuable because I consider my life valuable (valuable to me, not necessarily to anyone else), and I consider my life valuable because I really enjoy the ability to think about and experience things. One of my favorite thing about us is that we look up into the sky and wonder, look down into the ocean and wonder, look forward in our future and wonder, look back on our past and wonder, that we can look at other people and wonder. That we can look at any of the above and love and write and sing. sentience might as well be magic lol. Having that taken away from me is the worst thing I can imagine happening to me, which might skew my perspective in conversations like this one. And idk if most people would agree with my reasons for valuing life.

[-] skylestia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 8 months ago

Thanks, yeah, I gave all the headphones I couldn't take with me away to friends, though, so they went to good homes :)

The 7506s did have very clean sound! That's my preference which is why i liked them so much :3

The Exodus' don't sound bad, they just have too much bass for my tastes but I'm pretty happy to eq it down in software. I just really like the wood look of them

[-] skylestia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 8 months ago

well my bf is catholic so that gives me an in

[-] skylestia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 8 months ago

ya i'm definitely going to either keep calling them tweets or start calling them zits/shits like you lol

[-] skylestia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 8 months ago

(genuine question) what's the intended pronunciation? exit? that's so dumb lol. i've still been calling them tweets

[-] skylestia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 8 months ago

Wish you the best too! 🩷

[-] skylestia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 8 months ago

luckily the time investment isn't really an issue for me atm, i'm agoraphobic and a stay-at-home partner, i have a lot of time on my hands and i've always wanted a garden! lol

do you know if it's still expensive after the initial purchases of the lights and stuff? cuz other than space issues atm that would be my biggest limitation. since i'm agoraphobic i don't really get out much and my personal income is usually really limited, and my bf works regularly but he's not exactly wealthy lol. and same, in my state it can't be in view of public and you can't grow it if you live within 25 miles of a dispensary (which we do). i wouldn't really care about the regulations if i had space/money for it, though. my rule of thumb with stuff like this is that it's only illegal if i get caught! lol (for legal reasons this is a joke)

[-] skylestia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I see what you mean, I don't think I've ever seen the context of the question that prompted the statement, and yes when you put it like that I can see how the context can be important. So I did a bit of Googling to see what I could find after I read your reply, and here's what I found:

From what I can tell this is the first article that broke the news, and it's a conversation with Philippe Tremblay, the director of subscriptions at Ubisoft. Here's a long excerpt of the relevant portion:

The question remains around the potential of the subscription model in games. Tremblay says that there is "tremendous opportunity for growth", but what is it going to take for subscription to step up and become a more significant proportion of the industry?

"I don't have a crystal ball, but when you look at the different subscription services that are out there, we've had a rapid expansion over the last couple of years, but it's still relatively small compared to the other models," he begins. "We're seeing expansion on console as the likes of PlayStation and Xbox bring new people in. On PC, from a Ubisoft standpoint, it's already been great, but we are looking to reach out more on PC, so we see opportunity there.

"One of the things we saw is that gamers are used to, a little bit like DVD, having and owning their games. That's the consumer shift that needs to happen. They got comfortable not owning their CD collection or DVD collection. That's a transformation that's been a bit slower to happen [in games]. As gamers grow comfortable in that aspect… you don't lose your progress. If you resume your game at another time, your progress file is still there. That's not been deleted. You don't lose what you've built in the game or your engagement with the game. So it's about feeling comfortable with not owning your game.

"I still have two boxes of DVDs. I definitely understand the gamers perspective with that. But as people embrace that model, they will see that these games will exist, the service will continue, and you'll be able to access them when you feel like. That's reassuring.

"Streaming is also a thing that works really well with subscription. So you pay when you need it, as opposed to paying all the time."

Streaming is a distribution method that appears to lend itself to the subscription model, although currently it remains a very niche corner of the business. Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot told GI in June that Ubisoft believes in streaming, but that it needs time. "It's getting there," he told us. "Just not as fast as we thought. When you are in a good city with good internet, it's fantastic. But it's not the case for everyone. The Nvidia experience, for example, is fantastic, but we thought it would go faster. We've learned a lot by working with these services, and we're using that experience to enhance what we're doing,"

So yeah it sounds to me like the journalist directly asked how subscription models could become more accepted and normal. It sounds like Philippe Tremblay wants, in particular, for Ubisoft to get in the streaming market, like if you don't have a powerful enough computer to run a game, pay to stream it from a computer that is.

I'm on your side now I think, but I would maintain that Ubisoft would probably love a future where all games are subscription based, but that would just be speculation on my part only based on my bias against corporations ;3

So yeah I get you now, sorry for pressing you, thanks for bearing with me

view more: ‹ prev next ›

skylestia

joined 1 year ago