color_rect.set_instance_shader_parameter should work, as long as the color_rect is unique to each instance of the card, rather than being reused. If you assigned it in the node editor you could check the "Local To Scene" checkbox. Assuming cards are defined as separate scenes you instantiate. Otherwise you could duplicate() the resource in code.

The same would be true for color_rect.material.set_shader_parameter for the ShaderMaterial. If you could ensure it's unique per card, it should work. However, duplicating the material might not be as ideal, especially since the other option is also available.

A little tip: You could try print debugging with the get functions before and after you use set to see what the value was before (and notice that it might be the same as the previous set call from another card) and that it was correctly set afterwards. (Assuming I'm correct about diagnosing the problem.)

edit: Actually, my advice is only true if color_rect was a resource, but I think it's a node, specifically a sub-class of CanvasItem or GeometryInstance3D, so it should already be unique for each instantiated card. So without more information I'm not sure why set_instance_shader_parameter is not working.

Tangentially related: Oh boi I just love AI bros coming out of nowhere defending GenAI when nobody asked for their opinion. Wish more communities / instances would take a hard anti-AI stance and just get rid of them. It's not like anyone will make them see where they're wrong.

most of the the Arch cult forget to mention that

The "Arch cult's" holy book, the ArchWiki, states the following pretty clearly:

Warning: AUR packages are user-produced content. These PKGBUILDs are completely unofficial and have not been thoroughly vetted. Any use of the provided files is at your own risk.

Mention of one's use of the AUR for their needs doesn't need to come with a disclaimer.
People who don't read or don't use their brain are going to keep not doing so, regardless.

Yes.

Find a fitting meme template or create a new one. You don't need amazing photoshop skills. Or share your idea and let someone else do it.

Don't waste electricity and water, or legitimize generative AI to get your point across.

AI is distasteful to artists, disrespectful to our environment, and dangerous for the creativity of future generations.

The comic is giving me generative AI vibes.

If I were a transgender person

Thanks for "cisplaining" what a trans person would feel.

As a trans person, I would rather have a space where everyone's identities aren't questioned, than some kind of (potentially hidden) requirement to be in place that your identity has to be "real" in some way. If "normies" have trouble respecting trans people just because we also happen to respect other identities in our spaces, then shrug. If fellow trans people are uncomfortable with that, they don't have to be part of this space, either.

In the end, you're once again making this a much bigger deal than it has to be. Someone broke the explicitly written out rules and got bonked for it. And if you think this person is a troll, they sure are a good one with how much they're being fed with all these posts.

Makes me wonder if the "I got banned" posts are just a continuation of the trolling to make as much drama as possible.

Move on. There's trans people dying out there. This isn't worth fighting over.

Blåhaj Lemmy and its communities have certain rules regarding respecting of one's identity and their chosen pronouns. This extends to identities and pronouns you might not agree with. Those are the rules of that space. You broke the rules. The consequences followed. This is just basic stuff.

On the other hand, if you believe certain people to be trolling with their neopronouns, then engaging with the matter in any way, is kind of "falling" for it. So, just ... don't engage? This is the internet. People get to be (more or less seriously) humanoid animals, fantasy creatures and races, and if you can't get along with that, you can expect to get thrown out of a space that explicitly welcome anyone regardless of their identity or pronouns.

That requirement only exists when you also offer a Steam key for the game that's being sold. So Valve is actually the good guy here: You can sell on another store, where Steam doesn't get any money, and give the user a Steam key, provided by Steam for free, and the only thing they ask is to match the price on Steam.

Don't offer a Steam key, and you can pick any price.

That is my understanding of the issue.

There is a claim by some developers that Valve was pressuring them behind the scenes ("don't offer your game for cheaper elsewhere or else we'll take it down from our store") a while ago, but I've never seen appropriate proof of it, and that was part of (an earlier?) lawsuit.

30% is the industry standard across the board, with the exception of Epic which takes 12%. However, Epic has already shown that it's ready to dump loads of money into store exclusivity deals and tons of free games, so I will argue it's for the sake of growing the number of users and developers using their platform.

But do they, or any other competitor or similar store, offer the same functionality as Steam? rtxn already mentioned some. And there's more. And then there's the fact that Valve is using all that money not only to stuff the pockets of alread rich people (not that Gabe isn't a multi-millionaire if not billionaire, idk), but actually puts it back into the industry: Their own store, Linux/Proton (you may not care, but Microsoft becoming a monopoly in PC gaming is no good), and hardware (with their Steam Deck handheld, and VR stuffs).

Steam might be the biggest player when it comes to storefronts, but it's because they've actually earned it. And they're not actively preventing other competitors from entering the scene (other than existing). In fact, they keep trying, and keep failing, and then going back to Steam.

I'm not opposed to more money going to developers, but let's not single out Steam, who (perhaps besides GOG? I am not familiar enough with it) is doing the most for users and develpers.

There's been a hostile takeover at Gitea and it's now run / owned by a for-profit company. The developers forked the project under the name Forgejo and are continuing the work under a non-profit. See also: Their introduction post and a page comparing the two projects. Feel free to look up more, since I haven't familiarized myself with the incident all that much myself. Either way though, maybe consider using Forgejo instead of Gitea.

This thinking is hateful and dangerous.

Are there trans women who have previously experimented with being a femboy? Definitely.
Are there femboys that for one reason or another are actually trans but in denial? I'm sure they exist.

Is every femboy an egg? Hell no. There's plenty that are happy with their gender identity. In fact, thanks to them being able to be in touch with their feminine side, they probably know pretty well if they feel like a man or a woman. Don't push femboys to transition, but be supportive if they want to explore the possibility.

I think both instance admins have a valid stance on the matter. lemmynsfw appears to take reports very seriously and if necessary does age verification of questionable posts, something that likely takes a lot of time and effort. Blahaj Lemmy doesn't like the idea of a community that's dedicated to "adults that look or dress child-like". While I understand the immediate (and perhaps somewhat reactionary) concern that might raise, is this concern based in fact, or in emotion?

Personally I'm in the camp of "let consenting adults do adult things", whether that involves fetishes that are typically thought of as gross, dressing up in clothes or doing activities typically associated with younger ages, or simply having a body that appears underage to the average viewer. As the lemmynsfw admin mentioned, such persons have the right to lust and be lusted after, too. That's why, as a society, we decided to draw the line at 18 years old, right?

I believe the concern is not that such content is not supposed to exist or be shared, but rather that it's collected within a community. And I think the assumption here is that it makes it easy for "certain people" to find this content. But if it is in fact legal, and well moderated, then is there a problem? I don't believe there is evidence that seeing such content could change your sexual preferences. On the other hand, saying such communities should not exist could send the wrong message, along the lines of "this is weird and should not exist", which might be what was meant with "body shaming".

I'm trying to make sense of the situation here and possibly try to deescalate things, as I do believe lemmynsfw approach to moderation otherwise appears to be very much compatible with Blahaj Lemmy. Is there a potential future where this decision is reconsidered? Would there be some sort of middle-ground that admins from both instances could meet and come to an understanding?