PCSX2’s GameDB is tied to a version just the same. If the DB file changes on GitHub between versions (stable or nightly), that’s reflected when the user updates. Coming to think of it, RPCS3 might just download its updates from the RPCS3 website. I use Flathub, so I’ve never checked.

It looks at a (very) quick glance like this is going to be a file that downloads from https://api.rpcs3.net/config/, not something shipped with RPCS3 by default like we ship the GameDB YAML file with PCSX2. Optional like ours.

Aside: Shame to see RPCS3 still on Twitter. They’re a great team and deserve better than that. While I was away for a while, apparently a couple contributors decided to restart PCSX2’s Twitter (albeit automatically syndicated from our Mastodon and Bluesky), which I’m not especially happy about.

That there’s plausible deniability if I ever done saw it.

Oh, I won’t block them because I moderate a community they spent weeks ruining and barely didn’t get banned from as an olive branch.

E.g. fake bible verse

You mean “i.e.”, and yeah, he said that it’s “reflecting” Ezekiel 25:17.

“They call it CSAR 25:17, which I think is meant to reflect Ezekiel 25:17.”

He literally never said it’s an actual Bible quote or even all that close to one.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

barely more than a typo

• Oh-so-coincidentally creates a blatant lie.
• At the very start of the subheader.
• Not corrected after over 6 hours.
• By a likely Qatari-backed propaganda outlet who refuse to disclose their owner or funding.

Mmmmmhhhhhmmmm. So I’m naïve to assume Pete Hegseth might not be big into Pulp Fiction, but I’m getting all picky with Middle East Eye instead of following these ridiculous mental gymnastics to arrive at a completely undeserved good-faith conclusion.

Hilarious.

You’re being incredibly picky on one line in the article

I mean hey, I’m elated that this is an actual debatable opinion instead of insisting “no, bro, he totally adapted it”. I don’t assume he knew it was adapted from Pulp Fiction and not directly adapted from the Bible, because I have no way to know if he’s watched Pulp Fiction or would even remember that quote. If he thought it went Ezekiel 25:17 –> CSAR 25:17, he would just accordingly assume the USAF piled on a bunch of stuff from the original – no different than Pulp Fiction already did. It’s not impossible, but I have zero reason to assume it by default. If you think that he knew, god bless you, that’s also a valid opinion, and I’m not going to stop you from assuming the worst of Kegsbreath.

As for being “picky” over “he adapted it”, this isn’t just a line (although it’d still be a blatant lie if it were); it’s the subheader of the article, which, if you’re not that familiar with journalism (not a dig; some people just aren’t), is supposed to quickly summarize the piece/supplement the headline in a way that’d be too lengthy for the headline. The subheader is literally, in clear English, claiming that Pete Hegseth modified the quote himself, which is a complete load of disinformative bullshit just meant to make him look worse when this clear violation of separation of church and state is already plenty bad.

Yes, he didn’t realize it’s from Pulp Fiction. I show as much in the linked comment. Since apparently nobody’s willing to even check a link anymore, here’s (nearly) the entire comment verbatim:

He knew it wasn’t an actual Bible quote, but he did think it was a modified version of Ezekiel 25:17. Which it definitionally is. The actual string is:

Ezekiel 25:17 –> (edit: Bodyguard Kiba modification) –> Pulp Fiction modification –> USAF modification

Whereas he thought it was:

Ezekiel 25:17 –> USAF modification

I think that’s understandable if you’ve never seen Pulp Fiction (because you just assume the Pulp Fiction stuff was the USAF’s addition), but it’s still pretty funny.

The actual problem here, as usual, is separation of church and state being trampled over to make way for Abrahamic prayers in the US federal government.

If you think that means “Pete Hegseth adapted it” and not “Pete Hegseth quoted an adaptation of it he didn’t write and acknowledged as much but didn’t realize what the chain of sources looked like”, then I have no idea at all what to tell you. It’s beyond a clear-cut lie, and people on Lemmy still want to argue over it for some reason.

If you don’t think that, then I have zero idea why you’re trying to explain something I already explained more concisely in the linked comment nobody will bother to read.

What do you think the word “adapted” means?

??? What the fuck are you talking about? If I adapt something, that means I changed it from an original source. The subheader reads: “Secretary of War [Pete Hegseth] adapted a monologue”. Hegseth is quoting CSAR 25:17, so unless you think that’s completely made up and Hegseth just derived it himself from Pulp Fiction falsely claiming the pilots recited it, then “Secretary of War adapted” is a lie. Do you not understand basic English? Do I need to throw an English dictionary at you? Maybe it’s baser than that? Do I need to teach you how verbs work in English?

If I write:

But to be honest, I’m probably not gonna put much more effort in to helping —givessomefucks

Does that mean I adapted that from you? No, it means I quoted you. Jesus fucking christ.

The additions Hegseth made were completely written for Pulp Fiction, he’s just that stupid.

Jordan, your own Guardian article:

the words spoken by Hegseth on Wednesday, which he stated were from so-called prayer CSAR 2517 (combat search and rescue), was commonplace in military circles, and was read to crews that rescued an air force colonel from an Iranian mountain this month after his fighter jet was shot down.

And please read the quote from him in my comment.

Unless you’re insisting that CSAR 25:17 isn’t a real thing that was used and Petey made it up himself, he did not adapt it or claim to have adapted it. That’s not what an adaptation is; that’s rereading somebody else’s quote, which he sourced to USAF pilots.

If I quote something verbatim you’ve said and atrribute it to you, that’s not an adaptation; that’s a quote.

If you had a few more sentences, you wouldn’t have had to type all that…

If you’d read the linked comment, you wouldn’t have to act like I don’t know that.

If MEE is saying that Jules purports that it’s from the Bible, then sure.

That doesn’t at all explain the part where, according to them, Pete Hegseth adapted it.

Secretary of War adapted a monologue from the Quentin Tarantino film which purports to be from the Bible but is made up

No he didn’t. What the fuck? He literally sources it in his speech. He sources it semi-correctly, but this subheader is provably an outright lie. He didn’t make it himself, and he announced it was modified from the Bible.

“This prayer was recited by Sandy 1, which is one of the Sandies, to all Sandies, all those A-10 crews, prior to all CSAR missions, but especially this CSAR mission, which happened in real time,” Hegseth said. “They call it CSAR 25:17, which I think is meant to reflect Ezekiel 25:17.” —Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth

Did Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth adapt it and purport it to be from the Bible, Middle East Eye, you piece of shit rag?

Is it not bad enough that he’s wiping his ass with the separation of church and state? Do we need to sprinkle in disinformation for extra clicks?

@givesomefucks@lemmy.world correctly points out I misinterpreted the “purported to be from the Bible” part and that it’s referring to how Jules, not Pete Hegseth, purported it to be from the Bible. I apologize for that. The claim “Secretary of War [Pete Hegseth] adapted the monologue” is still, however, a clear-cut lie. Hegseth quoted CSAR 25:17 and didn’t realize that the adapted verse itself was adapted from Pulp Fiction; that isn’t Pete Hegseth adapting anything, just quoting someone else and mistaking how they derived it.

it totally looks like this idiot did not know this was not an actual Bible quote

He knew it wasn’t an actual Bible quote, but he did think it was a modified version of Ezekiel 25:17. Which it definitionally is. The actual string is:

Ezekiel 25:17 –> (edit: Bodyguard Kiba modification) –> Pulp Fiction modification –> USAF modification

Whereas he thought it was:

Ezekiel 25:17 –> USAF modification

I think that’s understandable if you’ve never seen Pulp Fiction (because you just assume the Pulp Fiction stuff was the USAF’s addition), but it’s still pretty funny.

The actual problem here, as usual, is separation of church and state being trampled over to make way for Abrahamic prayers in the US federal government.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR6fECxF44I

They grow stronger with each new anti-brain-cell.

I didn’t watch the second video, but assume it’s just: “Hey, let’s see if it’s any better now, since this is what I used last time, and it’s sold preinstalled on commercial hardware.” I don’t like Pop!, but I also think the people arguing he should be using something else – regarding a semi-popular, commercially-backed distro commonly advertised as noob-friendly – are hitting the copium too hard.

“But he wants to do gaming!” And I never had to install a special version of Windows because I wanted to do digital art. That’s not intentionally making Linux look bad; it’s just not going out of his way to doll it up like a burger in a fast food ad. Plenty of people will want to game but don’t treat it as their entire identity and therefore won’t be looking into “best linux gaming distro 2026 reddit”.

I liked JayzTwoCents’ video because he has an expert walk him through it and chooses Bazzite since he’s doing it specifically to evaluate gaming, not how good he is at using it. For a video where somebody is trying to assess the state of Linux for a normal user new to Linux, I don’t want an expert hovering over them the entire time, and within reason, I want them to pick what appeals to them.

I’m over here having a great time on Endeavour, but I got turned off of Linux for years after trying Ubuntu as a daily driver for several months and running into issues constantly. My actual Linux experience was eerily similar to Linus’ first video (it nuked my entire config twice), and I probably would’ve gone back to Ubuntu as a test if I were doing it for an audience and not for myself.

What happened on Pop! this time, by the way? COSMIC issues?

Agreed it makes him an accomplice to fascism inasmuch as hopping on the bandwagon and materially supporting for self-enrichment. I wouldn’t object to people saying that makes him straight-up fascist; it’s a close call for me, where he doesn’t give a shit about the fascist ideology itself and cares exclusively about money, but that’s still doing a fascism™ at the end of the day.

But, you know, they kind of accused him of being an avid neo-Nazi. “Nazi” and “card-carrying” have meanings. Like we really want to pretend the person who called him a “nazi fascist” knows fuck-all about Bessent? Even the tidbit you just shared about how he got here?