Sure, that’s great in theory, but the program is old and I’m not gonna contact the dev to fix up a more permanent version for a €15 software I got plenty of value out of on windows.

The point of me bringing this up was to say bottles didn’t work for this program and it was just working on windows 10/11 without issue.

“…and I couldn’t get it working on Linux…”

The Linux native version does not work for me on Arch Linux. Maybe it’s a Wayland thing or something, I don’t really know, but it doesn’t work out of the box and I don’t even know where to begin troubleshooting it.

I installed Bottles for one application, Hex Kit which is an indie application for making hex maps and I couldn’t get it working on Linux, and it didn’t work. Idk if it’s a me thing, but that was a perfect example of something I’d have expected Bottles to easily have solved but didn’t.

"I know zero people who play it, so let me into the inside knowledge about it. "

“Hi, my friends and I play it. We’re people. Here’s why we like it.”

“You sound like an ad”.

My brother in Christ, you asked for someone to tell you about the game and then I did - wtf did you think was going to happen. I’m not even really giving it a glowing review. I’m mostly saying there’s not a lot of great competition in the scene right now and this game does enough good to be fun to play. At the cost of free, my poorer friends are happy to play it while we wait for the next paid game we know we want to get.

I’d love to be playing Nightreign but it’s not good enough for them to buy in, and other games like… Oh what’s that extraction shooter by the original Hell Let Loose team… Hunger? That’s not out yet.

Like ya dawg, I like The Finals - I’m a guy on the Internet responding to a comment from a random about the Finals. That’s a pretty safe bet.

My friends and I play it nightly, because it’s a good casual FPS and it has many modes, decent progression. Honestly environment destruction is such a powerful mechanic for making games have variability between matches that it makes each feel unique - like a puzzle even at times.

There’s not a great deal of free games right now that are capturing our attention, we wanted an FPS this month, and there’s been no paid games everyone’s been willing to jump on.

Funny enough we’re waiting on Arc Raiders to drop which is also a game by the studio behind The Finals.

I thought the point was they were in the rafters and therefore wouldn’t die, and then we’re all armed with scoped rifles aimed at the “corrupt” politicians they viewed as a problem they were justified in forcibly removing. All of that feels very accurate to the Riddlers initial plans - kill “the corrupt people in charge” and “sacrifice yourself for the greater good” (by getting captured by the police like the Riddler does).

These were fanatics, they were extremists. In Ironman 3 they were henchmen who came off as mercenaries, people not devote to the cause and their simply to make money. Not that Ironman 3 should really be used as a great example with their use of the 10 rings only to retcon that so like… We’re they henchmen mercs or were they devote ninja soldiers or…? Still, pretty different situation.

Did the Riddler think he was gonna die? Did his henchmen? I didn’t get that vibe. And I think the Riddler was interested in the theatrics of his work from the get go, getting captured, the riddles (obvi lol), etc. I feel like going out on a big bang was always within character. And although he may have started by targeting the corrupt, I think his natural progression towards just targeting the wealthy or the “not like him” made sense. The Riddler killing many people via the flood felt natural to me but maybe I need to rewatch it.

As for his followers, we don’t get a ton of screen time with them but the movie was very effective at evoking the right wing twitch/forum/podcast vibe of a deep dark rabbit hole - so maybe I’m projecting - but I 100% can see random people who think the Riddler’s form of violence is cool or admirable being willing to dehumanize the people in the arena enough to commit mass murder. Idk, it’s the disciple vs the leader dilution of the message or intent. And I’d still argue that the intent was never to improve things or be consistent, it was to make people hurt the way he did and justify it however he could.

Thanks for reading all my shit lol, hopefully you got something out of this :D

I think there’s an interesting conversation to be had here but I’m not certain I’m going to do it justice via text; let me try.

I think what’s happening here (with your comment and actually the other one responding to yours) is the failure to separate the underlying motivation and intent of the Riddler and the Riddler’s mental state or actions.

The Riddler in The Batman stems from inequality and corruption and systemic failures. We can empathize with that concept and we can understand how it drives him to become who he is in the movie. But I think him coming from that place does not necessarily mean he’s “fighting corruption for the ‘little man’” as you said. In fact, I think the movie goes out of its way to show us that he’s less interested in helping people and fixing the system and more interested in hurting people and damaging the system. He kills the corrupt ~judge/politician in the beginning (sorry if I get details wrong or close to right, it’s been a few years and my movie memory isn’t what it used to be) and leaves a boy without his father - or maybe orphans him. He propagates some of the issues that made characters like himself and Batman.

He straps a bomb to a corrupt cop which I’d argue inherently endangers more than just the person “who deserved it”. He firebombs Alfred, an arguably innocent bystander in everything. He plans a partial flooding of the city and the assassination of the mayoral candidate (at least) while riling up extremists to go out and hurt people. He isn’t doing these things to weed out corruption or to help people, he’s doing these things because they make him feel good. He’s hurting the people who “hurt him” but in reality he’s cultivating the same environment that made him.

And I think the movie gives both Batman and Catwoman as counter examples to the Riddlers methods. Catwoman came from a similar background of hardship and systemic failings and instead of specifically violently hurting people, she steals from people to help abused women (and immigrants if I’m remembering correctly). She’s not making the system better but she’s helping people like an Anti-Hero. She’s trying to kill the mob boss like the Riddler does with who he blames, but she’s not cultivating an armed extremist militia and she’s taking care of people she relates to.

The Batman is even more interesting IMHO because he actually falls into the same trap as the Riddler at first, he’s hellbent on hurting bad people to the point that it’s doing more harm than good. Then the climax of the film is realizing he can’t be Vengeance, he can’t be what the Riddler is and what the Riddler promotes in his goons, he has to be Hope™. He has to help people, he lights the flare and leads people to safety.

That’s the central arc of The Batman, going from being interested in vengeance - in the easy solution, in the thing that makes small changes you can justify but that don’t help the people that don’t change the system that may even hurt everyone - to being interested in change, in leading people, in taking care of orphans, in not creating more kids without father’s.

The Riddler may have come from a place of systemic injustice but he was a serial killer interested only in vengeance, he wasn’t robin hood, and he was that way from the beginning of the film. I thought the third act really spelt that out in a way I really enjoyed. I don’t think he was ever protecting people, I think he was always obsessed with hurting the people that hurt him.

Of course, it’s Batman, we need to see Batman dress like a Bat and be a billionaire and justify not doing like… World changing philanthropy with just his money, that’s part of the fantasy unfortunately. But I hope in the sequel we see more of Bruce Wayne being the character I enjoy (and what they’ve set up nicely in this first film) of someone who does what the Batman can’t. Reinstate funding, do public projects, revitalize industry - all that shit real billionaires should do (before funding politicians to tax themselves out of existence) and that provide a real sense of Batman AND Bruce Wayne being heroes.

I’m one of the privileged people to have studied engineering and was able to move to Germany relatively easily (due largely to luck and some good planning). If you qualify for an EU Blue Card that may be an easy path towards a new life outside of the US.

If you are in college or younger it’s easy to start making plans to give you your best chances of success. And if you’re retired, approaching retirement, self-employed, or something akin to a digital nomad you should have less problems moving somewhere close like Canada or Mexico.

Not saying it’s easy, but there are paths. The cool thing about borders and countries is they’re all made up. French people need the same goods and services as Americans (with variation of course) and thus most labor is needed in most places. With declining birth rates nearly everywhere, the smartest countries are opening their borders to immigrants or have been open for a long time.

This is the first time I’ve read someone dislike the second half of the Batman. Kinda shocked to hear it reduced to “Hollywood spectacle” given the clear ties to the movies main themes and character arcs. It also was a nearly-perfect final act for a Batman movie imho with it not revolving around one villain Batman needs to physically beat up like most of the previous films.

Ya sorry, I listed two groups without explaining what the groups meant.

I can see that, but I will point out that even on that front I haven’t run into any issues. But here’s a quick run down of what I’ve played and/or proton said is good vs not.

Works: The Finals, Dota, CSGO, deadlock, Arc Raiders, marvel rivals, overwatch 2 (I don’t play this), rocket League (I haven’t tried on Linux but proton says it’s good), dune (haven’t played), world of tanks (haven’t tried but proton says it’s good),

Doesn’t work: Valorant, fortnite, rainbow six siege, warzone, rust (?), pubg, Apex legends, delta force.

Without running the numbers but looking at the stats page of steam, it’s probably safe to say more than 75% or more of all current players would be unaffected by moving to Linux in terms of compatibility. That’s a little unfair because CSGO does like 10 of these games in player count every day.

The non-steam games probably skew this percentage lower but still, it’s not like the multiplayer or competitive multiplayer scene is dry and vacant on Linux.

Just chiming in as someone who’s relatively new to Linux gaming for anyone curious or on the fence. In the 4 months or so of being on Arch Linux, I have encountered zero games that don’t run despite playing a large variety of games.

I’m not saying they don’t exist, and I’m not saying there aren’t hiccups or bugs out there, but boy is it a lot closer to “completely seamless” than I think most people imagine.

I was just getting this set up, this and the music one, because I want to leave Spotify. Hopefully an alternative solution shows up.

Genuinely funny comment, thank you.

I’m not saying this would be a bad thing, just that this isn’t “more than most people could imagine” kind of wealth. Maybe more than most people will experience in their lifetimes… but imagine?

Ask any 10-year-old what they’d do with $1M and somewhere between their personal butler, building a rocket ship and bringing dinosaurs back you will find the limits of human imagination quickly outpace the confines of $1M.

^ The person I responded to said “maybe more than most people will experience in their lifetime.” And then referenced $1M. I was simply anchoring to their value colloquially like you would in casual conversation.

I’m not trying to come off as defensive, I apologize. I responded to a comment that felt like it laser focused on one sentence within the article, only to be responded to by you with again what felt like a laser focused comment about one sentence. You weren’t like “by the way, the median lifetime earnings of an American is badadadada. [Insert your thoughts on my comment], but I just wanted to correct your quoted value.” Which would have made your comment’s point more clear to me, you just dropped a random correction that wasn’t super relevant to the point I was trying to make or even the point of this thread.

I praised you for correcting that value in the thing you responded to.

… although to your credit at least this is something worth correcting. It’s good to recalibrate statistics, “US people make more than a million dollars over their lifetime”.

Again, I apologize for coming off as defensive that was not my intention. I appreciate the calibration of casual figures, that’s good for everyone (and something I particularly appreciate).

Would you like me to change the number in my reply to 2M? Again, this feels like semantics - although to your credit at least this is something worth correcting. It’s good to recalibrate statistics, “US people make more than a million dollars over their lifetime”.

But it doesn’t change the fact that this article brings up a useful thought experiment, the top reply in this chain added nothing of value to that conversation which I think can be destructive, and I was attempting to point that out in the hopes of improving comment culture on Lemmy.

Sure, I guess you’re arguing semantics in which case have at it. Yes, people can imagine a lot more than what 1M would buy. Yes, most people won’t realistically earn 1M in their lifetime. Sure, the article had at least a single line that should be reworded.

I’d argue if all houses were redistributed to their rightful owners the price of all housing would go down - but that’s outside of this thought experiment I guess.

Remember though that that’s ~500k per person. So every kid, every SO, every parent. I think on average it would equate to more than just getting to own your home, even if we ignored the likely change in wealth valuations that would follow.

If you take all the wealth in an area and split it evenly among that populace there is no “upwards” - everyone is equal in terms of wealth. Money funnels “upward” because of wealth disparity, if someone owns more wealth than the average person than on average some of the average person’s money goes to that wealthier person in the form of rent or interest on debt or profits from the factory or what have you.

If all wealth was distributed this way it would look like everyone owning their own home and a portion of their place of work and their car, etc etc. I’m not saying money wouldn’t pool again over time, or that a new upwards wouldn’t be established, but I don’t think you phrased it fairly. The way you said it felt to me like an assumed hierarchy of better people and worse people - when in reality it’s just wealthy people and not wealthy people.