kyleamazza

But we're in this universe.

Based on the number of years it took to develop the game, it wouldn't be considered one that achieved "15 minutes of fame". 100 reviews is quite a far cry from your example of Balatro with 33k. I'm not sure where you plan to draw the line on "success", but I think this is a broadly reasonable contrast.

That's sort of the point of survivorship bias. Name one unsuccessful would-be entrepreneur. It's hard because chances are, anyone that's recognizable was successful in some way.

For games, I'll give an example: Aegis Defenders. Great game, no traction.

Playing devil's advocate: you can't block on native apps, and some mobile web browsers don't have extension support.

Also, please avoid ad-hominem ("hilariously limited intellect"); it overshadows what otherwise would be a valid point (enforcing a ban vs. practicing personal habit, critique on blanket statements, etc.)

The problem is that we don't (as far as I know) have the tools or knowledge on how to accurately assess the impact. So, the more conservative option of "don't mess with it" makes sense here, considering that other species' introductions to other ecosystems have been disastrous.

Reciprocating tariffs has been a thing for hundreds of years before the US even existed. The justification isn't "they're doing it, so let's just copy them", it's "they're inflicting economic impact on us by reducing the profit of our exports to them, we'll put pressure on them to stop that by reducing the amount that we import for them".

It's not simple "but he hit me first" logic: it's macroeconomics with an actual strategy in mind.

Reciprocating =/= literal copying.

"Free" doesn't mean no restrictions. For example, apps/websites like Myspace and Facebook and anything that's been used to spread hate, cause bullying, or threats have always been a target of regulation, albeit never an outright ban.

In the case here, it's ostensibly being done with national security considerations in mind. What remains to be determined is whether or not these concerns are valid. But the idea that "free" means the government has no power to ban things, including apps, borders naïvety.

I think you totally missed the argument: it's not about copying anything China does, it's about reciprocating restrictions that they place on your country. If China places a tariff on US imported goods, then the US places a tariff on Chinese goods.

This is and has been the case even for non-adversary countries, and is bread-and-butter foreign policy

Your comment comes off as "people who score well on tests are more often cheaters", supported by anecdotal evidence. Above all, it's hardly relevant to the overall discussion and feels more like a grievance.

That's a government person calling for an attack on another government. This is a citizen calling for an attack on a group of individuals, government-involved or not. It's not even remotely the same.

It's literally illegal to give death threats (not that I think this qualifies as a particularly serious one). But that's the difference between this and your argument with politicians rattling sabres. (Just to make it clear, I don't feel so strongly about the whole situation, but I do think making false equivalences is misleading)

To your last point, it might be more constructive to point out the specifics of why you are against corporate political speech as opposed to a somewhat-binary left/right of the political spectrum.

One benefit I see of it is normalizing the presence of historical out-groups (racial minorities, gender minorities, etc.) that have always existed in society.

But, in practice, the "support" can be paper-thin and the chasing of support from out-groups simply as a means to push profit margins is sometimes obvious and thinly-veiled enough to the point of growing discontent towards the groups that they're ostensibly supporting.

This sort of critique (even if I can't guarantee its accuracy) is a bit more nuanced and feels a little bit less cargo-culty than just left/right.

In the situation you posit, that sort of action would come from a vote, not a single person's vigilante call for action. That is the difference.

While I'd argue for a normal person that posting something like that would just fly under the radar and disappear into the aether of the internet, the same does not apply to someone who heads a large publicly visible company, and who posts publicly on an account associated (implicitly) with that company.

The thought, yes, but a public post as the public head of a very publicly visible company?...

Go ahead and post it yourself, it seems reasonable, yes?

Are you implying that it's not a threat of any kind? Regardless of how it's enacted? I would certainly rather be threatened with a nice day.

Especially in this climate, where the tip of a hat causes anonymous people to pile on and send threats via mail, it wouldn't be as simple as brushing it off.

The worst part isn't usually the initial threat, it's the piling on afterwards that can last for months and years afterwards.

There's a real leap in the phrasing of "die slow" as "I do not approve of your policies and hope that others are elected to improve the city".

Simply passing that off as "bad wording" is reductive and gives leeway to others who test the waters with extremism and turtle back into the shell of "I didn't mean it that way" when they get pushback.

It's not that Garry literally means he wants them to die, it's that it's irresponsible for a leader to infer that idea and to normalize (unintentionally, as I would give him the benefit of the doubt here) the same type of actions as actual extremists.

Do you eat tacos, sushi, omelettes, or fettuccine? Do you practice kanban, yoga, zen? Where do you think these words come from?

I think that's because the difference between the top of that 1% and bottom of that 1% is a magnitude of thousands. It goes from a few million to hundreds of millions, and up to many billions.

The bottom of that 1% doesn't have to worry about spending money for daily things, but going higher, the upper portions can spend on _anything_. So, the difference at least feels large between the rich and "obscenely" rich, as opposed to the 50%ers vs the 75%ers.

I've definitely noticed this both with myself and others younger than me who either grew up with short-form entertainment or heavily adopted it later on.

Anecdotally speaking, the rapid context switching has a massive effect over time on a person's ability to concentrate. It's a lot harder to focus on anything without the physical and mental urge to fiddle with something and scroll through short videos.

I haven't looked into whether or not there's significant literature on this though; definitely would be curious if this is indeed a worsening trend

Two of the moderation issues that I can think of are 1.) volume of information, and 2.) depth of knowledge.

Some unpopular views are overly represented on any platform. This is the reason why far left/right get amplified to be more mainstream opinions, despite being truly unpopular. Another thing is similar to self-censorship like you mentioned, but self-censorship in the sense that if you feel that the community has shifted towards a certain bent, then one might move on from that community, since it no longer represents what they're looking for/what they feel is right.

Finding legitimate information is also tough: there's been instances of journal-published data that was verifiably false, since the journal that it was published in was founded in order to push specific data/viewpoints. But, the average person doesn't know that, and probably won't be familiar with what journals are popular, legitimate, etc. While some people (you, I, and probably others on this platform) like delving deep into this sort of stuff, most people (I'm venturing a guess here) would stop short at "research shows that..." when fact-checking something.

I wouldn't argue _for_ banning, or at least would argue that there's a better way to do it that doesn't also burn people who are participating in good faith. But, most people won't/can't do the work to fact check everything since there's too much info and truly verifying everything would be a monumental task.

Here's a difference: you or I could get on a boat with little difficulty besides sea sickness and wobbly legs. On a rocket, you or I would die or suffer from other physical ailments caused by simply being in space and in different gravitational environments for extended periods of time. This isn't an unknown, it's a known.

On the ocean, you could land on a island, fish at sea, or be lucky and have rain provide water. In space, you have nothing, and guaranteed nothing for weeks, months at a time. Again, this is not an unknown, this is a known.

We're just simply a large number of significant innovations behind where going to Mars is unfeasible, physically and monetarily (namely, human physical/mental limits in space travel, time, supplies/oxygen, emergency response, funding (think of how expensive a single un-manned mission is), etc.)

It would be akin to telling the vikings to make an airplane. They would first need to discover engines, improved metallurgy, electricity, and a thousand other things before it would be possible and practical. The idea of a flying machine has been around for thousands of years, but only in the last hundred or so was it actually possible, and only the last 75 or so practical for an average commercial person. And even then, airplanes can always get more oxygen because they're within Earth's atmosphere.

To make one thing clear, I'm excited about the prospect of interspace travel (how could anyone not be?!) But, Mars as a goal is _so_ far off that it obscures and hides the reality of the steps and innovations that we'd need to make along the way before we can seriously make an effort to do anything productive on Mars that wouldn't be easier, cheaper, safer, and more effective closer to Earth.

It's not a matter of never try, it's more of a matter of what's even practical. Inhabiting Mars is not as simple as just landing a rocket on there with a bunch of people and materials. Space travel requires immense physical training, enormous costs just to get into space, plus there's the issue of handling emergencies if anything goes wrong while on Mars.

It's an idea that's so far off in terms of the technology that we'd need, and there's so many more useful things that are closer to within reach that are still similar pursuits that would be more valuable investments (i.e. asteroid mining, advanced satellite technology, etc.). Making incremental progress is great, but there's still the question of "what would we even gain from going to Mars?". There's no ore that'd make sense to mine, making/terraforming a civilization there when we can't even make one in Death Valley (which already has oxygen) is preposterous, and tourism would be impossible due to the physical limitations of space travel.

It's not that we should "never try", it's that there's no practical reason (right now at least) _to_ try.

The second article linked actually debunks the claim that workers have been leaving notes (but does note Shein's labor violations)

I think that was close to the original intent of "defund", as in reallocate funding for policing into different areas (and in some cases, I've heard more specifically splitting up police work into more granular area i.e. responding to mental health incidents vs. domestic abuse vs. a break in).

But the "defund" quickly ran away into "remove all funding", which of course is a lot more radical and less palatable for any but the further left. Also doesn't help that it made an easy strawman for opponents to this kind of reform to prop up and spread.

Definitely curious if anyone else has a different experience/chronology of events.

There's one reason (of many) that Japanese still uses kanji: it has a lot of homophones due to the lack of different sounds in the language (relative to Mandarin, which still has a lot of homophones). Even more, it has pitch intonation which differs the meaning of words. The simplicity of the sounds and grammar belies the difficulty of the language. There have been movements to try and romanize the Japanese language, and for the most part, none have caught on.

Korean has a much simpler writing system, but similarly suffers from a lot of homophones, and in addition with no characters/kanji to differentiate them. Neither of these are magically simpler languages: like any language, there's a lot of legwork that goes into learning them, particularly if you come from a language with little in common

(Edit: I'm not a linguist, I just happen to like both of these languages as a hobbyist; feel free to point out any inaccuracies)

At the same time, I wouldn't callously discard that these women are simply making up stuff because they're "gold digging".

"Innocent before proven guilty" is an important concept, but, I wouldn't pin the women as guilty of lying either

Because your body tumbling around in your car during a crash can kill passengers, or be catapulted onto the street causing another accident/injury from someone trying to avoid it

That's so strange, I've experienced all of these things on multiple set ups over the past year+ (based in the US). I wonder what the difference is on why some users do/don't get this...

Not that I disagree, but I had the opportunity to have both cases, each at separate schools. Having a (capable) full-time adviser meant that they were well-versed in the requirements of the program, as well as how to navigate administrative side of things, such as adding classes even if you don't fill the prereqs, etc.

With a faculty member, I found that they were more focused on their actual faculty/teaching duties, and had trouble with the more administrative side of things.

This is also probably dependent on the quality of the school