I don't think that purity testing people is an attractive method of talking about free software? We should meet people where they are, and besides, if games are good, they're good. Doom started out as proprietary software and got GPL'd. It's also cool to think that reverse engineering software, like in the case of OpenMorrowwind, is a thing. Besides, I pirate proprietary software all the time with cracked DRM. The harm is in the restriction of user freedom, not necessarily in the existence of the laws if you view the laws as fake and don't adhere to them. Let's talk about cracking DRM and decompiling these games. Let's talk about modding them. Let's talk about making servers and playing them online together.
If you have a computer and graphics card you could try some local llms. They are pretty awesome and you get to keep your days. I use oobabooga and stable diffusion with Silly Tavern as the glue to hold it together. I get model cards from character Hub
Well I look at it like this: I don't really care that much personally about my friends mundane things, but I do care about mine. I think that there isn't a reason for them to care about my mundane things, but I enjoy having my mundane things listened to. I like that reciprocity, so I made an effort to listen and ask questions that show I'm engaged in the conversation. I try to express empathy by saying when a situation sounds tough or fun. I have noticed that "showing up" for the conversation is what our friends want a lot of the time, and that's what we want as well a lot of the time. I have also noticed that after a few sessions of "showing up", I can actually get engaged and move beyond just showing up. I have a buddy who has a sick grandma, and the first few mentions of her I kinda had the same thoughts, like, I don't care about this lady, why should I listen. I showed up anyways and it led to some interesting conversation about the nature of mental illness because she was remembering very vivid details from her past and that led to some interesting convos about all that. I think that being able to find the enjoyment in a small talk conversation is definitely a skill, but it is rewarding in both your interpersonal relationships and in learning new things through unexpected exposure to new concepts. As a fellow autist, I'm pretty information driven, but neurotypical people, I think, are more feelings driven. The small talk stuff is super important to them and they put that up front first, I guess to judge your character? I'm not sure why, but I have noticed better interactions after I have engaged in small talk. It really is a trainable skill and when you get good at small talk, it can be enjoyable!
If I needed to say something in a two item list and wanted to say that the list could work either way, I would say something like,"meat and potatoes or potatoes and meat, either way" so I would be restating the list in the opposite order. But I also use the words vice versa. I just noticed that people say it when they want to sound smart. It's not like it's only said in order to sound smart. There are lots of phrases that are short, succinct, and have a very specific situation where they are applicable. These are the phrases that people have a tendency to use to punch up their sentences.
Milquetoast, vice versa, vice-sa versa (sic), erudite, illucidate, confusing size for importance (saying big meeting instead of important meeting), commensurate, je no se qua, anything in Latin, anything in another language, latent space, probability space. We use lots of techniques to try to punch-up our perceived intelligence, neurotypical people do it sometimes because they have a tendancy to associate station in a hierarchy with "good traits" like intelligence and use these smart sounding words to try to project authority... ? Maybe? Sometimes I use smart sounding words to talk over/around people when I don't want to engage them for whatever reason. People after weird. I think it's easy to see when people are dumber than you, and much harder to see when people are smarter that you; especially the degree to which (to which, being another smart sounding word particle. Particle when used to ike this, another smartness showing phrase.) they are smarter than you. My rule of thumb is that if someone's dumb, that's easy for you to tell, but if you can't tell that they are blatantly dumb, they are likely to be at least close to you in intelligence. If they seem smart, they are likely smarter than your best case scenario guess (they are likely smarter than you think). Everything goes out the window when you start talking about people who learned English as not their first language. Also acronyms.
This reminds me of LinkedIn lunatics. Funny