Profile of squippy

I think it's this one:

Shell holes are famously good for protecting you from further shells. This even applies to the aerial bombing of cities; it turned out that a heap of rubble is excellent protection from further bombing.

so the reason it;s in is undoubtedly because it captures an element of the period and the specific conflict; it is thematically appropriate.

The fact that the lategame battlefield looks completely different to that at the start, now a blackened, blasted hell-scape made mainly of nested craters, is both thematically appropriate and also useful. Because at this stage, both sides have their maximum firepower on the field, and fragile infantry are getting the worst of it. The fact that yellow cover is now commonplace is one of the few things that helps them out, and helps prevent them from being rendered useless.

There is no "homing"; it's purely an artefact of the way the game is presented. The game has determined that there was a hit; that's done and dusted, so there is no point talking about "driving out of range" or anything. The projectile is then drawn on the screen, taking a real-time path to hit its target. Because the flight time is not zero, and because the target may be moving, this path may appear curved.

I've said before that IMO it's arguably the best AT gun in the game. If it needs it's projectile raised a touch, I won't dispute that, but it's very effective in its own way.

for all the examples i gave, hormones and their interaction with the nerve cells is the "script"

Not really; hormones are the signal that triggers things, but it's that structure that contains the logic.

but that is only the case if the testosterone dose would vary so highly, that many women reach mens levels and many men reach womens level. can you point me to a specific paper that shows that? because everything i have seen so far on that shows that the opposite is the case. yes, these women exist, but they are relatively rare

Argument to and from papers doesn't really work for this sort of discussion, because we are not academics with access to journals, and so at best you end up reliant on what resources happen by chance to be easily accessible.

However the problem really rests with the term "many". Would 5% qualify as "many"? Because that's a small proportion, but would still be millions of people.

i would argue that a videogame and the emotions and mechanics it uses have a lot more to do with how our brain works than the wavelength of some light particles. clothing is a lot more about what your friend/partner/neighbour/etc wears. and i mean, how long do we have those kind of clothes. 2500 years? that is nothing on a gene scale

Well no, a good deal longer than that; we have evidence for textiles dating back at least 27,000 years. And even without that, you can look at the degree of display that went on in Zulu and Aztec cultures, which were both working with essentially stone age tech.

However,I'm not arguing that clothing has affected our evolution, I'm pointing to clothing as an expression... but not one which gives great evidence of fixed and eternal gender roles. Frex, the oldest industrial strike we know have occurred on the Pyramids, and involved a demand for mascara.

Clothing is certainly a venue where social status and sexual appeals are indicated, and if it really were the case that humans always instinctively performed their god-given gender roles, there would not be as much variability as there is. Most men through history wore dresses, after all, not trousers. The claim that you can just look at culture, and see nature expressing itself automatically, doesn't hold up.

my information was that some of the tribes were female dominated, others male. therefore female-dominated=amazons. if that is wrong, im sorry. did you just go from: "celts have some similarities with the scythes" to "female warriors were usual thoughout whole europe". if it were that easy to argue...

More accurately the very idea of there being sharply delineated "cultures" is in question. What we have instead is a complex of cultural features that are widespread, unlike the national cultures of later territorial states.

Incidentally, I'm not aware there ever having been any "female dominated" societies in the same way that there have been, and remain, male-dominated societies. Even matriarchal ones didn't make men second class citizens the what that patriarchal ones made women.

female fighters were uncommon, whether for the romans, the egyptians, in the middle ages, the mayans, american cvil war, 10000bc.

But 'uncommon' is all I've argued for. And 'uncommon' still means large numbers of individuals in populations as large as ours.

Even if something is 'uncommon', that doesn't mean that it is invented, or 'unnatural', or provide any argument for why people should be prevented from doing whatever they choose to do, no matter how unusual we may find it.

But lets look at the example you cite of the Romans. In Roman law, women had essentially no rights. When she was a child, she was the chattel property of her father, and when she got married, ownership of her was transferred to her husband. So no Roman woman was ever able to freely decide to join the army. To then cite the lack of women in the Roman army as evidence of the non-violent "nature" of women is absurd, because it was a society that expressly prevented them from being autonomous.

This is a classic demonstration of the 'is-ought' logical fallacy: the presumption that because something is a certain way, it *should* be that way.

many people argue exactly that on a brain level

Well, in a world where Flat Earthism still has adherents, and even Global Warming is hilariously rejected by some, I won't deny that someone, somewhere, has made such a claim. I will say that it has nothing to do with the serious argument.

how can you say that it is not a sufficient explanation? if you look at how many women like technical jobs or study something technical (=the mechanics of the game and pcs in general) and how many women like violence (high testosterone) and competetive nature (testosterone again), and then compare the amount of overlap with men, i would argue we come pretty close to the percentage that is shown here.

But this was the very point that The Machines videa addressed 0 not the incidence of women in combative gaming overall, but the difference in participation between RTS as a genre and the likes of FPS as a genre. And as for competition more generally, if you don't think there;s a huge amount of competition between women, you're missing the boat.

and well, discussing the difference between men and women is a important aspect of the question, so steering clear of the difference is nice and all, but not helpfull for a real understanding.

As I said, The Machine's videa tries not to deal with it by dealing only with contrasts between gaming genres, not the question of gaming overall. Which was an entirely reasonable and admirable decision.

My further point is that no matter how carefully these things are expressed, there;s always some cretin who pops up claiming the whole issue is just one of Political Correctness Gone Mad.

thank you very much for keeping this discussion mature, friendly and on-topic

Thanks and likewise, and to that end I won't be looking at this thread more than once per day, should the discussion continue.