Removed by mod

Here’s my answer from the last time this came up (which might as well have been yesterday from how often people unfairly lionize Sam and shit on Frodo):

“As he stood there, even though the Ring was not on him but hanging by its chain about his neck, he felt himself enlarged, as if he were robed in a huge distorted shadow of himself, and vast and ominous threat halted upon the walls of Mordor…”

"Wild fantasies arose in his mind; and he saw Samwise the Strong, Hero of the Age, striding with a flaming sword across the darkened land, and armies flocking to his call as he marched to the overthrow of Barad-dur… He had only to put on the Ring and claim it for his own, and all this could be. "

“In that hour of trial it was the love of his master that helped most to hold him firm; but also deep down in him lived still unconquered his plain hobbit-sense: he knew in the core of his heart that he was not large enough to bear such a burden, even if such visions were not a mere cheat to betray him. The one small garden of a free gardener was all his need and due, not a garden swollen to a realm; his own hands to use, not the hands of others to command.”

Sam was tempted, and if he possessed the ring long enough he would have been overcome like any other, but his Hobbit-sense saved him in that one small moment, when he had held the ring but a short while.

Lemmy moment

I wonder what’s the largest that defederates with the most.

Almost definitely beehaw

I also wonder what’s the largest that gets defederated the most.

Probably exploding-heads. If not, then lemmygrad.

Definitely sh.itjust.works. The largest instance that defederates with the fewest other instances (though they could still do better here - there’s no reason to defederate either exploding-heads or lemmygrad), no email required on sign up, and a super chill vibe.

Japanese has demonstratives like “that”, just no articles.

If you’re interested, please do crosspost this (and any other linguistics memes you have) over to /c/[email protected]

Do you have a source for this? Also, what sort of “exceptions” do you mean? German has cognates of most of the English inherited grammatical exceptions, and has many more classes of its own that aren’t reflected in English.

I think that’s what the meme was trying to say.

For me it’s anything I have to download an app to operate.

Bloodborne

500 hours is also my sweet spot I think - I don’t think I have any games with significantly more than that. Here are the games I have ~500 hours in (that I can remember off the top of my head):

Breath of the Wild
Civ IV
Dark Souls
Monster Hunter World
Skyrim
Warframe

If entire series count though, it’s gotta be Civ, by a landslide.

“Framerules” in Super Mario Bros. speedrunning on NES is probably the most memed analogy for a (very slightly) more complicated concept I know of.

The game can only send you to a new level every 21 frames (about .3 seconds), so there are tons of levels where timesaves don’t lead to any benefit, because you have to save a full .3 seconds in order to see any benefit.

In the community, this has been explained with the same analogy so many times that “Imagine there’s a bus” has become a well-known meme.

So, imagine there’s a bus that only leaves the station every .3 seconds (21 frames). Because the bus only leaves at the times on its schedule, arriving early for the bus doesn’t get you to your destination any faster, because you still have to wait for the time the bus will leave. For this reason, any new time saves in SMB1 must reach a new “framerule” (get there early enough to catch the previous bus) for there to be any real timesave.

Guardian needs to speak for itself - I had a great fourth!

… you yeet them off a cliff in your “documentary”?

Gotta hit up Bojangles for the best biscuits.

Dune. While there’s no way to perfectly capture the magic of the intricate machinations of (Frank) Herbert’s universe, the movie gets about as close as anyone could, I think. The only thing in its league is Jackson’s LOTR trilogy, and I think Dune is at least as good if not slightly better. Can’t wait for the second (and hopefully third!) one!

Alakazam

I didn’t see the post in question, but wanted to point out that this is an entirely too common misconstrual of Popper’s Paradox of Tolerance.

The complete relevant portion from Popper himself (emphasis mine):

“Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.”

Somewhat ironically, censorship in the name of the Paradox of Tolerance more often reflects the actual intolerance that Popper was referring to, but that’s been co-opted in the name of justifying silencing people whose opinions you don’t like.

It’s your community, so do what you want with it of course, but it irks me when people use the “Paradox of Tolerance” to justify the exact intolerance Popper was speaking against. The Paradox of Tolerance is intended to encourage debate, not to be used as a cudgel against those you disagree with, however horrible their opinions.

Here’s an easy way to test if the Paradox of Tolerance is relevant:

1. Is the person with intolerant ideas refusing to participate in discourse? Paradox of Tolerance applies; intolerance is justified according to Popper.

2. Is the person with intolerant ideas participating in discourse but you don’t like what they’re saying? Paradox of Tolerance is irrelevant here, and you probably shouldn’t use Popper as a crutch when you censor their opinions.

It’s a Lemmy thing, not just on jerboa. I just sort by “top day” to see the top posts from the past 24 hours. Once I’ve seen most of those, I switch to new all, which keeps a decent amount of new content coming through.

The platform is still young, so it’s a combo of a) not enough content yet and b) early sorting algorithms that paradoxically haven’t caught up with three influx of users yet.