Kind of ironic for the meme because cod 4 did have a version of sbmm.

Skill based matchmaking is the worst thing to happen to team based games in my memory. Theoretically it should lead to engaging games but it usually just is a mishmash of the high mmr players being high as a kite and low mmr players that got carried too far.

Just feels like, why try if you’re guaranteed a 50% win rate no matter what? That leads to more friction between the people checking out and playing for fun and people playing to make their mmr bigger.

It used to be fun to see your progression relative to the lobby and how you were improving over time. If it felt too easy you could give yourself a handicap with an off meta gun/strat. If it was hard it felt extra good to have the rare game as a top performer.

And before people say “you just like stomping noobs”, I’ve been on both sides in many games. Floated top 2-3% in Rocket League and hated every minute, been a cellar dweller in some shooters and had hundreds of hours of fun.

Counterpoint, I know lots of people that do/have done lots of those things who also aren’t complete psychopaths

Must be a reading comprehension issue, I specifically pointed to genetic [biological] fitness in that context. The definition is right there, I’m not wrong. I can reword it if you want: “my argument is explicitly not supporting eugenics”

And still, no actual counter argument. Just responses that might as well be “I don’t like what you’re saying” followed by a short philosophical essay. What humans morally should or shouldn’t do is completely orthogonal to what humans are as biological creatures.

If I’m misunderstanding the dozens of hours of conversations I’ve had with personal friends who professionally research animal+human evolution and behavioral neuroscience, please enlighten me. To summarize my understanding:

• Sex is a widely researched topic, it’s mental health benefits are well established and there are dozens of studies on the physiological benefits in multiple species.
• Neural pathways for sexual behavior have ties to drug addiction and violence.
• Disrupting or over stimulating those pathways has very clear behavioral implications.

All of this points to a very reasonable statement: humans are designed for a non-zero amount sex and large deviations from that can negatively impact social behavior.

People in this thread hallucinate that as an endorsement of regressive public policy or toxic ideology. It’s possible (if you reeeeally really stretch your mind) to want more healthy sexual behavior in society without also supporting sexual enslavement.

The paprika app does this

Every single study shows it saving money in the long run. It’s already in use and doesn’t cause problems because professionals spend more thought and time on it than armchair internet engineers. You’re tilting at windmills.

a good sized city would need a nuclear reactor brought online just for this.

I mean maybe if our cities existed in Antarctica and experience 3"+ of snow per hour nearly every day year round and we insisted on keeping 40% of our city footprint as roads. How are cities currently running these systems? Somehow I haven’t heard of any of them building extra nuclear reactors or going broke?

You realize that power use fluctuates and thermal energy storage is a dead simple, ancient technology? That the majority of snowfall happens overnight when power demand is at a minimum? You’re just waving around napkin math with no concept of how anything actually works.

It’s usually heavy industry that’s providing that. If you don’t have a convenient heavy industry to provide that, then move on.

So we’re just making things up now? CHP plants no longer exist? 17k water treatment plants and 4k datacenters using a combined 8-10% of all US power just vanished? Renewable power surpluses no longer need to be stored?

There’s perfectly good plows for walking and biking paths

Isn’t the goal in reducing car based infrastructure to cut the number of roads and make infrastructure more efficient? Instead of scaling heating costs to be smaller and more manageable you’d rather keep the fixed costs of a full vehicle fleet and the fixed damage of plowing and deicing? Your argument makes no sense at any scale.

If you want to talk about energy waste how about starting with the kWh you spend defying basic common sense over the internet.

You’re really caught up on energy efficiency, civil engineering is not just thermodynamics. Energy is becoming incredibly cheap, before the current administration derailed our energy sector, we were on track to hit $0.03/kWh for utility scale renewable power by 2030. For reference, that’s about $10 to clear that city block.

And again, systems like this and the more famous one in Holland MI are generally run on waste heat (from a power plant, wastewater treatment plant or datacenter), so that math doesn’t even apply. Looking only at energy cost leaves you tripping over dollars to save pennies.

The real costs are and always have been infrastructure. Yes, it’s not possible to use this as a drop-in everywhere. It highly depends on the usage/wear of the road, space constraints, upfront cost of installation, maintenance, access to a heating solution, etc, etc… Even with this hydronic layout the main costs are the transmission lines, the cost to heat them is minor.

It’s very weird to see so much resistance to this in an anti-car community, as if pedestrian and micromobility infrastructure doesn’t need snow removal too.

As a fun fact, it’s also a non renewable resource that we consume way too much of

This is a pretty simplified and reductive take. How much electricity does it take to power a snowplow that can weigh as much as 30 tons with salt for all surface street miles? Is the freeze-thaw-freeze cycle plus weight damage to the road more efficient by cost/resource use? What about snowbanks as a hazard and visibility obstruction?

And that’s putting aside all the ecological damage salt causes or that these systems can often recycle waste heat. Your video about a car traveling highway speeds melting multiple inches of snow isn’t a gotcha for a completely different situation.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news but if you can’t relate to mental images existing in a visual sense you probably have some degree of aphantasia.

Some research indicates that it may be a spectrum from complete lack of imagery to full five-sense detail, which might be why it’s hard to relate to either extreme. At any rate most people fall in the category of seeing an image, to the point that hyperphantasia is even more common than aphantasia.

I have it*, but not as severe as others. Imagining an apple starts as a very abstract concept, I can’t visualize it without concentrated effort. Other people might be able go on to describe the stem, the leaves, the shade of red, the glossy wax exterior, etc… I can’t automatically build to any of that, even if I subconsciously default to a red apple the “image” may just as well be green.

*edit: checked the vviq test and discovered the label is hypophantasic

Depends which table

One of us is misunderstanding for sure.

Fitness is a quantitative representation of individual reproductive success.

You’re conflating metaphysical goals with the literal biological goals of propogation. It has nothing to do with survival, plenty of animals sacrifice themselves after reproducing, either as a food source or lack of evolutionary pressure to stay alive. The human exceptionalism that our awareness puts us above these natural processes is part of the problem.

In this case the logic is sound. Evolution doesn’t often occur, it always occurs. And we’re not talking about secondary or tertiary reproductive fitness (ie: humans are efficient at running so they must run, men are physically strong so they must defend), we’re talking about actual reproductive encounters.

Its the entire goal of the of all life on earth. There’s a carrot for anything getting you closer to reproducing and sticks for anything that moves you the wrong direction. Despair and discomfort can be caused by plenty of things, but you don’t have to disentangle the entire human experience to draw the line from a lack of healthy sexual experience to an ideology based on extreme sexual frustration.

Edit: again, down votes with no counter argument. For some reason people agree that abstinence in sex ed is a bad policy but turn around and say sex isn’t part of normal human function. Which is it?

None of my argument is about regressive bioessentialism. There’s no inherent violent masculinity or genetic fitness or any stance about what relationships are “supposed” to look like. Men are just having less sex than women.

24% of men aged 22-34 did not had sex in 2022-2023 vs 13% of women. That’s a much larger cohort to propagate that frustration. You can argue that there are other social factors that make it manifest in this specific toxic ideology (as opposed depression, anxiety and body image issues) but the root cause is the same.

More sex means less frustration about lack of sex, less sex means more. Why jump through hoops to make it about personal failing or some other indirect cause?

What is the core of the issue? “Society bad”? There are a lot of comorbid social ills but you can’t reduce everything to your favorites.

Economic frustration will likely manifest as anti immigrant sentiment. Extremist groups provide inclusion as a cure for social isolation. Degrading healthcare systems are fertile ground for anti-vax and pseudo-medicine. Digital echo chambers give a space to amplify every toxic narrative.

Occam’s razor says the guys preaching the fatalistic misogyny gospel are probably experiencing some strong sexual frustration. If they didn’t have that problem they could find something else to be mad about.

No toxic ideology precludes the others, but a racist with a stable marriage isn’t going to be blackpilled. He already knows minorities are the real problem.

Self-worth can be a result of societal expectations.

Sure true, but you can’t ignore that humans have millions of years of evolution that have honed our physiological and social behavior to act a certain way. Just because it’s not rational doesn’t mean you can flip a switch and shrug it off.

For example, peer pressure in teens is more than a normal learned behavior. The need to conform to an in-group that (historically) will be your lifelong community is immense. The pain of exclusion and embarrassment is amplified, closer to actual physical pain, compared to what an adult/child might feel in the same situation.

The only reason a person would feel bad is because society is pushing the narrative

…is because reproduction is a core part of animal evolution. An asexual person saying that core discomfort is invalid is like a person who can’t feel physical pain rolling their eyes at touching a hot stove.

The comment was about self worth not societal worth. Being asexual shouldn’t matter with that argument because you wouldn’t feel the same sexual drive; your self worth isn’t impacted.