Yep. Like many arts, gamedev is something people will do for free, so it’s very difficult (or torturous) to do it for profit.

I found it fun to do amateur gamedev, for my own little enjoyment (e.g. making a super-basic FPS with a gun that shoots a thousand cubes like a shotgun, then making it shoot a thousands spheres that explode on impact like a grenade launcher). Lots of engines are accessible that you don’t need to learn much/any programming skill to make something fun. You can do plenty with free assets, I never paid for anything, but if you are willing and able to pay small amounts for premade assets, then it will be even faster and easier to make something more pretty.

I’ve also done level design (and LoC) for some open-source FOSS games. This is easier for some games than others, but it’s also rewarding. I was particularly known for making experimental or puzzle-like levels, so it was nice to get feedback from others and improve. I’ve mostly grown apart from games these days, but I don’t regret the time I enjoyed making them.

Yep, was expecting to see the BBoC mentioned.

Emphasizing the part in that wiki page where they mention two of the co-authors disavowed the book as the main author was apparently ‘desperate’ to increase the number of counted victims in the ridiculous ways RiverRock mentioned.

Yep. If money isn’t a problem, the answer is ‘never’.

Does your local government publish advice? Some have a contact who can tell you what is safe to use in their infrastructure.

It depends what you mean by movement, and where you mean.

There are already some direct action movements on the ground, like Subvertisers International, Adbusters and historically B.U.G.A.U.P to name some famous Western ones.

If there’s no specific use-case (this is a general introduction, not Intro to Operating System Design) and this isn’t academic Computer Science teaching, then certainly a scripting language.

Easy to learn, easy to use, and much more applicable for simple automation that benefits the people learning.

C is dangerous if someone doesn’t take care. Java is verbose and personally I didn’t enjoy it one bit. You said this is a non-technical crowd and you expect them to follow at home.

Yeah, synesthesia counts!

Find a physical activity you enjoy and do it at least three times a week. Either join an organized religion or specifically curate a group of people you do a weekly activity with who will come check on you if you suddenly stop showing up.

I managed to get both these with sport teams. (At least in my area), the local sports competitions are actively looking for players, and if you have skills or enjoy a role others don’t, you can even just volunteer (instead of pay fees) in a few teams before joining one you like. And one foot in the door will likely get you invited to other teams and competitions when someone’s team needs a substitute player (or you can just ask, “Does anyone have a team that play on Thursday nights?”).

In my favorite team, I became de-facto captain of because I showed up most reliably and was the remaining member of the original team as people left and joined. One week I forgot to tell them I would be away for the match due to travel, and the next day I wake up to a couple of check-in messages just to make sure I haven’t vanished or had a bookshelf fall on me. And it’s a reassuring feeling to realize you’re part of a community that cares about each other.

An end result of liberalist idealism. (plus what others have said)

Celebrating on the 24th. It’s not even a long historical tradition in my own family or local culture, we adopted it after my grandparents celebrated a few Christmases with a Central European immigrant family in the neighborhood who start celebrating at midday 24th December and realized it enabled those of us who were married/etc to celebrate the next day with our other families. It’s much more relaxing like that, I’ve heard my friends complain after trying to fit in a breakfast, lunch and dinner at three different Christmas parties in one day to avoid offending anyone.

only a few hundred

I’m surprised “propaganda” isn’t in the top spots.

This video on conservative influencers and set building comes to mind.

Or to frame it slightly different: I believe that too much money and/or power is what turns most people evil over time.

What are the mechanics of this?

Instead, I believe the means of acquiring money/power from those who have enough of it creates pressures (say, a newspaper sponsored by Coca-Cola is pressured into not reporting on Coca-Cola’s problems), along with the hyperrealities created by conventional rich lifestyles (mainly associating with other wealthy people, being used to paying people to do work instead of doing it yourself, all that kind of thing) distorting ones worldview and alienating them from most of society and its issues.

Inheritance is an interesting aspect: if my grandfather stole and passed it to my father who passed it to me, I can acquire it by doing nothing.

This is not a counter-argument - it highlights that doing nothing is complicity in injustice.

It is liberalist ideology to assume humanity is defined by morals, empathy, care, collective aid and other social values that we need to survive. Humanity is material.

The reality is that these atrocities are well within the bounds of humanity. Billionaires are anti-social, as in against a functioning society (not merely against civilization). Incompatible with long-term life. The horrifying truth is that they’re human.

What are you talking about?

• The comment they are responding to says “Why do some people think dehumanizing anyone is fundamentally OK?” [I agree btw]

• They reply with an extreme example of “anyone”: literal flag-waving Nazis.

At no point are “all wealthy people” mentioned in that statement.

They’re human, and should be destroyed mercilessly by any means necessary. There’s no contradiction in recognizing the humanity of people who will unfortunately need to be killed to stop them killing the rest of us indiscriminately.

Dehumanization is pointless, and leads to dangerous misanalysis (like underestimating them). Honestly, it’s also just a cowardly coping mechanism to avoid the harsh realities behind the idealistic moral frameworks we’re brought up with.

The problem I have with it is that we didn’t get rid of kings.

Moreso that we replaced kings with a new form of ownership, and therefore new owners. And, in every era, the ideas of the ruling class are the ruling ideas - the idea of the divine right of kings seems to have been replaced with the divine right to profit, and to use “earned” money however one wants, with no regard for society.

I know others have already replied with counterarguments, but as a simple partial counterpoint, the fact that everyone alive are decedents of those who survived the hunter-gatherer stages of their society, for a long long time, is evidence that we’re generally capable of learning to be caring, smart and sane, it’s not some utopian advanced stage beyond our grasp. Prior to our technological developments like food preservation, individualistic societies were not viable.