Howdy, I posted this and also run Sauerworld, the community news and resources site for Cube 2: Sauerbraten.

As others have helpfully pointed out, Sauerbraten is an open source Quake-like arena FPS. It's been around for years, and this is this first major release since 2013.

The community is still quite active, and there's been a particular hubbub of activity preparing for this new release. It's a super fun game if you're into arena FPS with lots of opportunities for tinkering, modding, and freeform content creation through its fairly unique online map editor.

I'm happy to answer any questions, and there's also the community discord server: https://discord.gg/j3kyxtj

Yeah, thanks for pointing that out :) As someone who has never before heard of Cube, Cube2, or Sauerbraten, I just stumbled on this post and clicked on it because I couldn't figure out what the headline meant, and was even more confused because on the Sauerworld page it's not immediately apparent what it is about either. Ok, the sauerbraten.org page linked in the footer is more informative, and I understand that this is primarily a page "by fans for fans", but still maybe the "about" section should be more prominently featured...

Thanks for the heads up. Haven't actually played since Cube was current and Sauerbraten was getting worked on (iirc, time's past).

Next holiday at the hackerspace we're looking for something to spin up and hook in anyone walking by we'll be playing Sauerbraten!

This sounds more psychotic than hypocritical to me. "I'll win in a fight", is this a normal way of thinking? I'm a US citizen and I can honestly say this thought has never crossed my mind while driving. My thought when passing a cyclist is to make sure I'm giving them enough room and hope I'm not doing anything to make them fearful. I thought most people were this way, and it seems obvious to me that it's the right way to act. How prevalent is this other, "I'll win in a fight" attitude?

I'm not surprised at all. My observation has been that teachers - even ones who are brilliantly good as teachers - are abysmal PowerPoint users. Every one I've seen has made the same kind of mistakes:

  - Way too many slides for the time available
  - Numerous slides that with both paragraphs of text and elaborate diagrams
  - Slides that cannot be read at all by the audience because everything is too small
  - Reading verbatim from slides in the presentation
  - A firehouse of information that is impossible to remember or even follow
  - Zero narrative flow, no sense of what are key points

[edit: fix formatting]

You're not in it to win it anymore. Get out while the getting is good, relax a bit, prepare for your next shot.

So what? It sounds like you are using this argument to excuse companies whose practices are causing workplace injury.

Doesn't excuse anything. Sidetracked the conversation I apologize

Let me put this into terms that you might better relate to.

To a person with kids, being lectured about the right choices to make in their lives with regards to their kids by someone without kids is much like being an engineer forced to endure the ignorant suggestions and misguided directives of a clueless non-technical manager.

Haha I love this metaphor. Very relatable!

However I wasn't lecturing (or trying to). Just providing a paradox that might help me better understand parents perspective.

What? How do you suppose this surveillance will be conducted?

It sounds to me like you are proposing that we solve the problem of individual companies having to hire some people to look at bad things by having the government hire a whole bunch of people to look at bad things.

>"It sounds to me like you are proposing that we solve the problem of individual companies having to hire some people to look at bad things by having the government hire a whole bunch of people to look at bad things."

No, you've misunderstood.

I'm suggesting that in order to cut down on the depraved content being produced, you have to go after the producers. Increased online surveillance makes it easier for law enforcement to track down the producers (and consumers) of this content, as well as providing stronger evidence for their conviction.

In other words, rather than dealing with the problem on the surface, which is what the content moderators working for online companies are having to do, go after the problems at the source. Cut down on the levels of dodgy content being produced.

Do you understand what I mean now?

Your argument rests on the assumption of a sufficiently large overlap in the set of illegal and set of disturbing things they viewed.

While the best headline grabbing portion of such content moderation (child abuse) do fall into that intersection, it's a faulty assumption to construct your already-dubious reasoning that better surveillance will improve the live of the content moderators.

>"Your argument rests on the assumption of a sufficiently large overlap in the set of illegal and set of disturbing things they viewed."

There's no need for overlap. You see video footage of rape, child abuse, animal abuse, beheadings, etc... that's enough to take someone to trial. One video is enough.

>"While the best headline grabbing portion of such content moderation (child abuse) do fall into that intersection, it's a faulty assumption to construct your already-dubious reasoning that better surveillance will improve the live of the content moderators."

It's not rocket science, it's quite simple. If you stop the ability of the producers of morally bankrupt content to produce the content, there will be less new content to remove. If you disagree, explain your logic.

Obviously you have no kids and no interest in persuading anyone who does, to be throwing around this "failed parent" talk for anyone raising a child with special needs.

Which of the following seems more likely?

A recruiter who was already giving the guy the wrong interview, and whose job revolves essentially around HR and sales, made mistakes in asking a series of technical questions.

An expert with decades of relevant technical experience misunderstands and confuses basic networking and system topics.

Which of the following seems more likely?

A person fails to read a question verbatim.

A person who has been the "smartest person in the room" for decades has an inflated view of his fluency on a topic and makes mistakes in his favor when he tries to reconstruct the questions from memory.

A bit OT and I hate to be a pest... but can you guys please start offering laptops with more than 1080p displays? It's almost Kafka-esque that my phone has 77% more pixels than a $2,500 graphics workstation laptop.