Cosmic Cleric

It’s insanely deep with a chill gameplay loop. I’ve exclusively played single-player.

I’ll have to get off my ass and try playing it, been seeing it around forever.

_{Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)}

I played the entire game through on the deck. It played excellently.

Nice! I’ve been meaning to give it a try, but I never get around to doing it. I’ll have to make more of an effort.

_{Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)}

Stardew Valley just got a huge update recently, I don’t find it that surprising! It’s a great update.

Ah okay. I just assumed it was the next Minecraft for kids and that’s why it’s population/popularity was hanging on at a high level.

_{Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)}

Surprised to see The Witcher 3 still on that list. And the fact that Stardew Valley is number one also is surprising to me.

It would have been interesting to see the actual total hours for each game as well.

_{Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)}

An after action report, basically?

And no, it’s not preventing input to improve a product, it’s asking you to be less absolutist in your comments. “It doesn’t work as well as it should” compared to your “it doesn’t work”. When it obviously does work, albeit could work better.

Can you please stop editing your previous comments to add a new point that can be responded to, and reply instead?

To your point that I quoted above, which is your second edit, they didn’t work for me, at all.

I’m not going to say it doesn’t work well when it doesn’t work at all, I’m going to say it doesn’t work at all.

Seven plus attempts is more than enough for any human being to try to get a link to work, and honestly, links are supposed to work on the first try, or or maybe even the second try if the server is being slammed.

EDIT: No, you didn’t state that it didn’t work after seven minutes and multiple routs of attempting to get the link to resolve. I see that you have edited that in later, in one of the later comments.

I stated in my origional comment (link, or see below) that it didn’t work for me. After having read one of your comments about refreshing, I went back and added (and stated in the edit that I forgot to mention the steps / how many times I tried) for others who would read later more detail about it. I clarified on how many times I tried, and did not add something new from scratch to make a point.

You’re being intellectually dishonest.

What I added in…

Edit: forgot to mention, I tried reloading twice, went back and re-clicked a couple of times, as well as when I did my reply I embedded that original link into the reply and then I tried it again from there, so I tried to resolve the link a bunch of times over a seven-minute period.

I’m not attacking you, I’m attacking your words.

And the reason I said you were obstinate were because you were. You refused to accept that it works since it doesn’t do it in the way you want it to. And now you’re rage-downvoting. You should probably take a few minutes off.

You’re not being intellectually honest.

I specifically stated that it didn’t work after seven minutes and multiple routes of attempting to get the link to resolve. It never worked, it never resolved.

Who said I can program?

Wow, so you bypass everything I said just to come back with a five worded single sentence that avoids the overall context of what I said.

Why are we arguing, why are you attacking me? It doesn’t help gatekeeping, it preventing input to improve a product.

Sound’s like you’re just being obstinate, then. It works, just not how you would prefer (well, I would also prefer that it didn’t give an error screen like that,

The WTF are you calling me obstinate then?

but that’s besides the point).

No, that’s exactly the point. You even agreed, responding to me as well as responding to others, that’s not working as what most would consider as normal, with a preference on what a more normal response to clicking on the link should be.

The good thing is that you should be able to contribute and make it so that it doesn’t do that since you wrote you were a software developer for your whole career.

I’ve contributed to open source projects before, so I’ve already done my bit for “King and Country”. I’m recently retired. But since you care so much about it, I’m sure you can contribute.

You should take a step back and realize I’m not attacking Lemmy, I use it, and I support it. I am just calling out a design and implementation point that needs refinement, as like you mentioned, is what’s done in early open source projects.

Understanding how much data it might be potentially requesting, I’d even accept a “please wait while we load this community” screen that then redirects to the community once its been loaded onto your instance

This would be closer to my and others expectations on how a web link should work.

So you’re saying you did know that Lemmy has the thing where if you’re the first one to ask to get community data from another instance the link will give you an error and you must click it again (or reload) to get the instanced version of that community for your instance, and then say that it doesn’t work?

Yes, I did, and that’s bad design, bad programming, and goes against the expectation of every last freaking human being on the Internet as to how a link should work. And I’m saying that as someone who was a software developer for their whole career, and uses Lemmy on a daily basis, prolifically.

Edit: forgot to mention, I tried reloading twice, went back and re-clicked a couple of times, as well as when I did my reply I embedded that original link into the reply and then I tried it again from there, so I tried to resolve the link a bunch of times over a seven-minute period.

That is how Lemmy works. Not my fault if you didn’t know that.

But, I did know that. I literally click on a link, if it works, it works, if it doesn’t, if I get an error message, then oh well, and I move on to the next thing.

I’m not attacking Lemmy, I’m saying this for any website and any web link.

Try the link again. It’s the proper way to link to communities using Lemmy.

I’ll try the link, and if it works, it works. If it doesn’t, I move on. It’s not my job to try to make it work, it’s supposed to “just work”.

Your link doesn’t give people on other instances the easy option to subscribe to the community.

I’m aware, I was just trying to give a pointer to the forum (assuming the link doesn’t work for others as well), so people can manually subscribe if they wanted to, as a community service.

Tried clicking on that link, got this error…

The server returned this error: FetchError: invalid json response body at [Redacted]. This may be useful for admins and developers to diagnose and fix the error

I’m assuming you were trying to link to here?

I’m aware. My point still stands.

It will definitely be interesting to see how all of the shakes out, legally wise.

If there are copyright experts that want to weigh in, I’d be interested to hear their opinion.

Myself as well. It’s a new frontier, legally.

I’m putting them here just in case. Only costs me a line carriage and a Ctrl+V.

Seeing that you have done that made me start to think about doing it myself, as I definitely feel there are days when I’m being shadowed by AI training mechanisms.

But if it doesn’t make any difference legally as a deterrent, then I wouldn’t bother.

So they would send random DMs with pictures, to threaten lawsuits they couldn’t enforce, to achieve what exactly?

They wouldn’t have to send random DM’s if they got the IP addresses more directly, as the article describes.