The American spelling “matte” probably comes from the spelling “mate” derived from French “mate”, and doubling the “t” to differentiate it from “mate”. The British spelling “matt” was probably primarily influenced by the German word “Matt” considering the UK tended to have more German influence.

Alternatively, either (or both) may be an etymological spelling from Latin “mattus” (which means “drunk” but likely became a word for “pale” in French).

While I am a linguist, I only deduced this from a bit of Googling and a lot of speculating, so don’t take my word for it…

Also what Europe if every people group with a unintelligible dialect had a nation.

Papua New Guinea/Indonesia and Africa have like a thousand to a two thousand languages each, I think it’d be funnier doing that with them

is it that difficult to look up the answer from a reliable source?

With the current state of search engines and their content (almost completely unrelated garbage and shitty blogs make in like 3 minutes with 1/4 of the content poorly copy-pasted out of context from stackoverflow and most of the rest being pop-ups and ads), YES

SEO ““engineers”” deserve the guillotine

Man Biden is really trying to lose the upcoming election isn’t he. A year ago I would not have predicted that he would fuck up such an easy reelection this badly, but here we are. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory I guess.

Apparently Biden has always been this shitty when it comes to Palestine. Some things children just never grow out of it seems.

if Kagi were open source sure, but it’s $10 a month and the CEO is kind of an asshole. And a generative-AI-bro (please don’t make me call them GAI-bros)

I’d rather stick to FOSS solutions

Almost all people in the first world wear shoes that crush their feet/toes. It’s how shoes are designed.

Relevant video

So I take it you’re against the government subsidizing science research in general? “The government shouldn’t fund new technology” is a stupid and destructive position. We’d be living in the 1800s if it were up to solely the capitalistic market. I mean, the first broadly effective antibiotics that are responsible for saving probably hundreds of millions of lives at least only exist because of people working in government-funded labs, under government-funded universities, for the government. Why should the environment be treated like it doesn’t matter to our civilization?

All I mean is that statistic is not relevant here. One in three men commit sexual assault over the course of their lives. That doesn’t mean it’s a third chance someone’s going to do it randomly to a women in the woods.

Would you feel comfortable leaving your kid with someone who raped a child? Or someone who has said they would rape a child if there were no consequences? Or even being around a pedophile as a kid? Why do you think a woman would take their chances with sexually aggressive men? Because rapists are likely to be repeat offenders, on average rapists commit more than 1 rape and have more than 1 victim. “1 in 3 men are rapists or want to rape, but that doesn’t mean all of those rapists or aspiring rapists will want to rape you specifically when there’s nobody else around and no legal consequences for their actions” is a hard sell to women, just like “pedophiles don’t always reoffend” is a hard sell to parents. Obviously pedophiles aren’t the same as men willing to rape women, but I feel that analogy makes it a lot easier for men to understand the feeling – a woman doesn’t want to be stuck with a stranger who has admitted they would commit rape if there were no consequences, or an actual recent rapist for that matter.

And yet women run into more than 3 men every day and remain unmolested.

All of these crimes happened to someone they planned in their life over time. Not randomly at the gas station.

Lmao this is delusional. I literally gave you the numbers, plenty of women are raped by strangers.

They are crimes of personal hate that hurt the entire family.

Actual delusion

It’s not like men are attacking women on sight (1 out of 3 times).

And that means the large amount of men that commit rape and say they’d commit rape given no consequences are just non-existent? Do you have to rape a woman every time you go outside to be a rapist or something?

There are a small percentage of sickos that might attack a women in the woods.

And you base this on…? Are you gonna tell that to the large amount of women in college that get raped by people they barely no because there’s very low likelihood of consequences? That rape doesn’t happen often because you don’t see it? That the women reporting rape are in a conspiracy against you?

You are lying to yourself by actually stating that women only get raped by people they’ve been close to for years. And you’re lying to yourself if you think someone raping an acquaintance somehow makes them less likely to rape a stranger if they can get away with it.

Not 31%. This is all of a course obvious unless you want a frame statistics to spread hate

It’s not my fault if you want to ignore science and reality. It doesn’t even have to be 31% – even if it were only 10%, which yes over 10% of young men OUTRIGHT ADMIT that they would rape a woman given a situation with no legal consequences.

Men aren’t rapists. But an alarmingly high – at least single-digit percentage – of men have already committed sexual assault, and a double-digit amount would if they could. Papers on the matter mostly conclude that the ratio of sexual assault victims to perpetrators is around 3:1, which means the amount of perpetrators is almost certainly double-digit considering the amount of women to be sexually assaulted is well over 1/3. 25% of college-aged men specifically admit to committing sexual assault, while 8% admit to committing rape or attempted rape, according to the NIAAA. That is bad news for a woman.

It is a gamble with a chance of at least 31%. It is a random man, picked from anywhere in our God given country. It is not “very specific to statistical contexts”, you likely meet multiple rapists every day without knowing. It’s not like all the rapists are huddled up in Mobile, Alabama. In the city, in the suburbs, wherever you meet people, you will meet people who are willing to sexually assault a woman regularly.

That’s what you don’t understand by not being a woman or by not knowing the experiences of women. You don’t know how much you are required to fear the men around you to survive.

“A couple of bad examples” is at minimum 1/3 of men my guy. Most women with life experience are not going to take that gamble. In 2021, 400-500 children in the entire US die annually due to abuse from their mothers. It is not at all comparable.

You’re usually safe with sharks in general. It’s your problem if you think sharks are some mega-dangerous animal that terrorizes humanity. I wouldn’t entrust a kid, or even a pet for that matter, to a stranger regardless of gender.

Your statistic isn’t even about women. It’s about mothers. And the study states obvious common contributing factors to it:

The mothers were often poor, socially isolated, full-time caregivers, who were victims of domestic violence or had other relationship problems. Disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds and primary responsibility for the children were common.

It has nothing to do with “daycare workers”. It has to do with the fact that on average being more disadvantaged and marginalized makes mothers more likely to harm their children. And, indeed, while you’re not likely to be killed by your mom, a large chunk of the population does face abuse, from parents regardless of gender (but possibly more by women). I would be scared to be the child of a majority of parents, most parents are abusive even if it’s not legally documented as abuse. How you think that’s relevant to most women experiencing sexual violence and rape culture being prevalent in society is beyond me though.

Frankly, sexual assault has nothing to do with attraction.

You’re bringing up attraction – it’s irrelevant and not something I talked about.

Everyone knows how serious sexual assault is. It’s ridiculous to make an entire gender out to be evil.

You’re the one interpreting it as “men are evil”, probably intentionally. “Would you rather be stuck alone with a random man or a black bear” is not a question of “are all men scarier than bears”, it’s “are you more afraid of what a randomly chosen man would do to you if alone with you in the woods with no consequences for his actions than you are of what a bear would do to you”. You seem to be taking personal offense to the observation that a large portion of men are willing to make a woman suffer an extreme amount given the chance with no consequences.

The fact of the matter is, despite not all men being a threat, there’s enough of sexually aggressive men that are a threat and usually not much way to separate the “willing to do bad things” men from the “not willing to do bad things” men, that women have to see most men as a potential threat in order to avoid getting raped. I know, it sucks that the bad apples are ruining it for you or whatever, but you’re here basically getting mad at women for expressing that they don’t feel safe alone at the mercy of another man they don’t know.

Again women are much more likely to murder babies. Why are they allowed to run daycares? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2174580/

Man what in the hell are you talking about? Is this some conservative troll I’m not seeing? Are you just throwing out a non-sequitur to do some sort of woman-blaming or distraction?

Also 20% to 40% of women who report being penetratively raped were raped by strangers. And when women are sexually assaulted by a stranger, more than 54% don’t report it, according to the NCJRS. So you can’t just act like women are almost exclusively sexually assaulted by people close to them. Regardless it’s not very relevant in a scenario where there are no legal/societal consequences for committing rape.

Men can be terrible but it’s not that likely to encounter rapists and killers.

It is EXTREMELY likely to encounter a man who is willing to sexually assault or rape you given the chance with no consequences if you’re a woman. It’s ignorant of the differences in experience between being a man and being a woman to think that it’s rare to encounter men who may harm you and that it’s irrational to not give men the benefit of the doubt. Misogynistic rape culture is rampant, and it’s very rare for men to understand that, more common is victim blaming or telling women they’re irrational for being extremely cautious around every man they meet.

“Men can be terrible” is an understatement. Most women face sexual harassment on a regular basis by men who otherwise seem like normal and functioning members of society, and most women have been sexually assaulted. Just being a woman carries a massive risk on its own. Often times rape is even from people the victim knows well. Rapists don’t look or act a certain way, they don’t have to seem creepy, most rapists are average dudes like anyone else. There is no method to differentiate non-sexually aggressive men from the extremely common sexually aggressive men, and the extremely low risk of being caught after committing the crime makes it significantly more dangerous, because a lot of people only don’t commit crimes because they know they’d face consequences.

6.5% of women reported unwanted sexual contact as their first sexual experience… On average, a girl’s forced sexual initiation was 15.6 years old.

JAMA Internal Medicine, “Association Between Forced Sexual Initiation and Health Outcomes Among US Women”, 2019

When you’re out in public, or at a highschool reunion, or even at a family gathering, you’re likely surrounded by at least one rapist or future rapist. A meta-analysis on unreported rape, in fact, states this:

Studies of unreported rape, mainly on college samples, indicate that from 6% to 14.9% of men report acts that meet legal definitions for rape or attempted rape

Lisak, D., & Miller, P. M. (2002)

And this study from 2014 suggests that 1/3 of white college-aged men would rape a woman if there were no consequences, despite only 13.6% agreeing they would when explicitly pointing out that it’s rape. Studies like this also make it obvious that a large portion of men don’t think rape is rape.

Various other studies suggest a similar or higher amount of men would try to pressure a woman into having sex if she said no, including by getting her under the influence of drugs/alcohol or by attemtping to manipulate her with verbal abuse. Which, obviously, is rape.

And keep in mind, this is only the portion that voluntarily said they would. The actual number is likely higher considering that people tend to undersell “embarassing” behaviours or thoughts, like drug abuse and desire to rape, even on studies which aren’t face-to-face.

That’s why being alone with a random man is a much higher risk than being alone with a bear to most women.

The code looks like any other Python code out there.

Investing in Godot probably has no sizable benfefit to Valve. But it does have a big benefit for gaming as a whole, specifically smaller or newer developers/studios. Meanwhile investing more in Source 2 may have a lot of benefit for Valve, depending a lot on their future plans.

Valve already has a game engine you can use – Source – although outside of their own games, it’s not really popular. Otherwise I think it’s moreso that making a good general gaming engine is hard. Like, really hard. If Valve tried to compete with, say, Unreal or Unity, (especially with their relatively small team) it’d more likely than not have no chance at all. They’d need a LOT more manpower, a massive budget, and to hope that they actually make something quality enough to actually be a viable alternative. Even then, though, it doesn’t have the 2 decades of content and design that Unreal and Unity have, which is pretty important. Although I suppose Source does have a lot of user-generated content.

It’d be a gargantuan investment, a massive risk that has a high likelihood of not turning out well, and even if it were successful it would likely take many years if not over a decade to actually see the benefit of it.

There’s a good reason most games use an extremely small amount of engines, either that or their own in-house engines. It’s a monumental task to make a great, easy-to-use, generic engine like the ones currently on the market.

IMO Valve trying to enter the game engine market would just end up being either Godot but worse, or Bevy but worse. It’d be far better if they just created a team to work on a pre-existing open-source engine, although I guess there’s not any money involved in that unless they for some reason used the engine.

How can you tell that they’re not a 2D slice of life anime character living in the real world with real world problems? You the NSA or somethin’?

Social jet lag? Wouldn’t that just be delayed circadian rhythm?

Sounds just like Gaijin… although now that I think about it, this sounds worse than Gaijin.

I love Paradox’ games but man, I really hate Paradox sometimes. I bought all the Stellaris DLCs at the time while they were on sale (about $100, I think it was everything before the update that added espionage) thinking I was supporting the development of intergalactic space genocide & intelligent life cannibalism game, but the more I got into the community the more I realize… the devs kinda fuck the community over a lot. I would normally think “wow, they’re making so many great hits at the same time, the games might be extremely buggy but they really deserve credit” but as time goes on I start to see them more like I see every AAA studio. I guess that’s all you can expect when the company’s stocks are public.

Also imo you shouldn’t have to pay $300 to experience the full game god damn it! Although they do allow you to play as if you have most DLC when the host does, so I can’t say it’s immorally greedy. It’s something I can appreciate.