I agree. As much as I agree with the idea of universal basic income - because I think supporting society while reducing the work necessary is something we should aim for, because it's the best way to ensure everyone gets a fair lot in life and because I think it's a necessity with the direction the labour market is heading - this isn't really the kind of thing I want to see in this community, personally. Hell, UBI doesn't really have much to do with the thought of "if X is Y% of Z then 1000X is Y% of 1000Z" - it's just basic maths really (and OP seems to have got the maths wrong, too).
loobkoob
joined 1 year ago
Those are the best kinds of compliments in general, I think, whether it's a parent complimenting their child, someone flirting, a platonic compliment, or whatever else! Compliment things that are within their control and that they can feel pride over and it feels a lot more meaningful.
It's okay; I appreciate the apology! :)
I think it's important to look for the nuance in situations and not treat everything as zero-sum. Both sides can have good points and be open to criticism at the same time (this isn't an "enlightened centrist" take, I promise!). I think a lot of discussion online does tend to strip away nuance and take the position that if you show any empathy with one side then it means you must hate the other - I do my best to avoid that!
these people SHOULD be putting this negative pressure on them. It’s deserved
Was it not implied I agree with that when I said:
The angry customers and the state of the game are problems.
and;
- customers being disappointed and/or wanting a refund is perfectly reasonable
- people wanting the game to be better is also reasonable
I'm not going to defend the poor quality of the game because it's obviously bad (from what I gather, anyway - I've not played it myself) and should be improved.
?
I don't see why that would make my opinion stupid. Yes, the studio/publisher should be held to account for the crappy release. But a big part of holding them to account should be not giving them money for it in the first place; not just handing over money and then complaining afterwards. Complaining afterwards is reasonable for the people who did hand over money, but they should also hold themselves accountable for financially rewarding a company that puts out a crappy product - they're part of the problem.
The angry customers and the state of the game are problems.
- it's hard to feel sorry for people who pre-ordered because they got exactly what they paid for - a game of unknown quality and quantity of content
- it's hard to feel sorry for people who bought post-release because they also got exactly what they paid for - a game where reviews detailed poor quality and quantity of content
- customers being disappointed and/or wanting a refund is perfectly reasonable
- people wanting the game to be better is also reasonable
- people abusing the devs is not reasonable
I'm not going to defend the poor quality of the game because it's obviously bad (from what I gather, anyway - I've not played it myself) and should be improved. But I do think gamers could learn to be a little more responsible with their purchases and inform themselves before buying a game.
I'm pretty over the whole cycle of games coming out and not meeting expectations, people buying them anyway (through pre-orders or day-one purchases), people being unnecessarily rude/hostile/sending death threats to developers as if they were forced to buy the game as gunpoint. Yes, developers should try to do better, yes publishers should often give developers more time to polish up games rather than announcing the release date two years in advance and refusing to delay, but also consumers could really take some responsibility for what they decide to give money to.
If a car can receive OTA updates from the manufacturer, then it can receive harmful OTA updates from an attacker who has compromised the car’s update mechanism or the manufacturer.
There's potential for a very dystopian future where we see people assassinated, not via car bomb but via the their cars being hacked to remove braking functionality (or something similar). And then a constant game of security whack-a-mole like we see with anti-virus software. And then some brilliant entrepreneur will start selling firewalls for cars. And then it'll be passed into law that it's illegal to use a vehicle that doesn't have an active firewall/anti-virus subscription.
It almost feels like the obvious path things will go down. Yay, capitalism...
I'm not totally opposed to software being used in cars (as long as it's tested and can be trusted to the degree mechanical components are) but yeah, OTA updates just seem like a terrible idea just for a little convenience. I'd rather see updates delivered via plugging the car in (and not via the charging port - it would need to be a specific data transfer port for security reasons). Alert people when there's an update, and even allow the car to "refuse to boot" if it detects it's not on the latest version. But updates should absolutely be done manually and securely.
It's the length of the combined total working lives of an entire football stadium full of people.
The reason it’s overwhelmingly called “climate change” instead of global warming now is because of language change pushed by billionaire foundations.
I do think "global warming" struggles to convince some more simple people anyway, unfortunately. Because while the average temperature of the globe is increasing and causing the changes in climate that we're seeing, I've come across far too many comments from people saying things like "global warming must be a myth because it snows more than it used to" and things themselves smarter than all climate scientists combined for that observation.
Of course, those same people probably think global warming is good because they like their summer holidays so perhaps their opinions shouldn't matter much either way!
Their hits are all pretty mid.
Gimme Shelter definitely isn't mid, and is one of their biggest hits. I'd argue it's their best song, in fact.
“It’s absurd that we live in a society where people feel the urge to tell me to greet them with ‘sallam alleykum’”.
There's already a huge difference between what happened and your example here. Your example is "people saying you must do X" . What happens when it comes to gender is people asking, "please do not do X".
They're not saying you must refer to them as, for instance, she/her, but rather asking that you do not refer to them as he/him/they/them/whatever. You're free to just not use pronouns to refer to them at all if that suits you better - you can refer to them by name instead. You're left with plenty of options and only a handful of restrictions.
Your example, on the other hand, is completely restrictive; you must take this single course of action, and there are no alternatives.
For what it's worth, I do think we're in a fairly transitional stage (ha) of how we as society deal with transgenderism. I think people being made to change their pronouns in order to feel comfortable is silly. Not because those people are silly - they're just doing what they can to feel comfortable with the restrictions society has placed on them - but because society and language are silly.
Why do we refer to people by gender at times when it's completely irrelevant? Someone having a penis, or male hormones, or whatever other "masculine qualities", is irrelevant 99% of the time when I refer to them as he/him. If I say, "Donald Trump? Yeah, he's a corrupt idiot," then why does him having a penis have any bearing on the language I use there?
And why do we have such gendered roles in society? Why can't men just wear dresses and make-up and link the colour pink and still identify as men? Why can't women cut their hair short and wear baggy clothes and like engineering projects and lifting weights at the gym and still identify as women? I guarantee that if we could remove all those kinds of gender associations, you'd see a lot less trans people.
People transition because who they are and what they like, and what society says they have to be (based on their gender) are at odds with each other, and it's literally easier for them to change gender in order to be allowed to be themselves than to change society. Being trans isn't some kind of personal failing; it's a failure of society to accommodate people who deviate even slightly from its rigid roles and expectations.
The ideal future, such as I see it, is for there to be no trans people because no-one feels a need to transition - they can just feel comfortable and accepted as they are. But until then, you need to recognise that there's a societal issue and stop being a part of it. It takes such a small amount of effort on your part to use the pronouns someone requests, or to avoid using pronouns at all, and it makes such a huge difference to them to be gendered properly. So just be a decent, respectful person and accommodate their wishes and stop making their life worse.
The Expanse is the first thing that came to mind for me as a counter-example when I read your first comment so I'm glad to see you mention it! It even plays on the exceptionalism idea in book/season 3 and 4 where Holden seems special because >!Miller is appearing to him!< and because >!he isn't affected by the eye parasites!< only to explain those things away with reasoning stemming from events that already happened in previous books. And any exceptionalism that comes after that is largely due to the reputation or skills characters have built for themselves rather than because they're "chosen ones".
If you haven't read the books, I really recommend them!
I recall him saying a year or two back that he ultimately thinks it's a good thing it failed, too, because, if it'd done well, he probably wouldn't have gone onto do more serious things like Escape At Dannemora and Severance.