Why the hate?
Gosh people… Shutdown your brain
You can’t seriously be shocked that people are downvoting you when your only defense is “stop using that silly little brain to think”.
Human life expectancy has doubled in those couple hundred years. Believing that something is good just because it is old is absurd.
Currently still using the G502 Hero, and all it’s customization is on-board, edited using a portable .exe. I’m using some Rosewill mechanical keyboard which I believe has all its customization tied to inputs while holding the FN key.
Fuck, I hate always-online apps just to use the God damn peripherials I’ve paid for. I go far out of my way to avoid them.
Listen, man, I can get stuff wrong sometimes. I’m still not convinced I am in this case, but, even if I am off on one very specific niche use of a word that rarely, if ever, comes up, attacking my entire livelihood over it, as though it defines every facet of teaching English, is an insane overstep.
I am not so arrogant as to assume words can only ever have one meaning, nor to attack a stranger on the internet over a disagreement on that meaning. I have also made no such logical fallacy. You asked if I was “sure”, and followed up with a suggestion that I had never spoken with a native English speaker. I said yes, I am confident, and then offered up my background as evidence that, at the very least, your assessment on my experiences is incorrect. I can see how you could conflate that as a call to authority, and perhaps should have phrased things in such a way that doesn’t leave room for such assumptions. That said, I’d advise against jumping down people’s throats based on assumptions, else you’ll end up doing things like building a strawman argument, while simultaneously accusing others of logical fallicies.
I’m done with this. The level of vitriol this discussion has been laced with is unwarrented and suggests that any further conversation is a waste of time. This entire disagreement should have been:
“Hey, I think X is right.”
“Well, this says Y is right, so you must be wrong.”
“I mean language is funky and weird, a lot of words mean different things in different spaces, so whatever.”
“Yeah, sure, whatever.”
Everything beyond that was grossly unnessecary, terminally online, internet arrogance that we’d both be better off without.
I’m not sure if you found my original statements challenging to follow, but nothing you’ve said contradicts what I’ve said. Parts of the definitions I’ve provided are strewn in the definitions you’ve provided, and differing definitions of specific word case isn’t unusual, even within similiar cultures. Language is fluid, and the same words can mean a lot of different things.
There is often a gap between common-use language, and the academic function of words (see “racism”). This is why I emphasized the relation of the definitions I provided to the fields of anthropology and sociology, as well as why I stated it is a use almost exclusively found, in my experiences, in academia.
I don’t appreciate the strange, ignorant, tongue-in-cheek jabs at my background. If you think I have something wrong I welcome you to say so, but the strange sense of superiority you’ve attached to your comments is unnessecarily insulting.
I am literally an English teacher, and have spent years editing university papers for English as an additional language learners. Yes, I am sure.
“People” is a generic term for more than one person.
“Persons” denotes a singular distinct grouping of people. Ie, Native American persons.
Not part of the question, but “peoples” is used for a plurality of distinct persons. Ie, “this had great impact on the various peoples of North America” would be a sentence to lead into a discussion on how an event had varying impacts on each unique cultural group in North America. This is largely only used in academics, specifically anthropology and sometimes sociology, but understand this use helps clear up the reason for the distinction between “people” and “persons”.
While I understand and agree with your premise to a point, aren’t you advocating for the removal of all randomness in videogames? As long as random factors are tied to outcomes, games will always be playing off that desire that the Skinner Box highlights. I’d argue that the entire modern rogue-lite genre is predicated on the fact that sometimes you will get “better” powerups, upgrades, etc., which leads to better outcomes. Auto-chess games are similiar, where hitting good random rolls leads to high powered teams and easy wins.
Mastery of both these genres requires both a wide birth of knowledge, and flexibility as you make due with what you are offerred, rather than simply always having the best things at all times. These are skills that are fun to have tested and build master in, and I don’t really think we should eliminate that from games. I agree that the worst offenders are simply trying to feed off human addiction rather than build are emergant gameplay situations, but any rule that targets the addict chasers is likely to catch other games with randomization in the crossfire.
Alright, I’ll bite: what exactly is a “stonefruit” in this context? Google just says “fruits with large seeds that are basically rocks in the middle”, which I suspect is not the pseudo-intellectual flex your boss is going for?
It might be boring and obvious, but the speeds.
I used to have to plan ahead, set overnight downloads, very consciously and actively manage data rates and in general never plan around getting something. Today, I can get basically ANYTHING in less than an hour on FiOp. Most things, 5-10 minutes. Transfer rate has outscaled data size, and it’s fantastic.
Every single time I have played an Annapurna published game, I had a fantastic time. I won’t say that everything they did was equal, but everything they did was entertaining, and thought-provoking.
I can’t quite follow the legalese required to parse EXACTLY what this means going forward, but I am sure it is not good, and that is disappointing.
Fucking real, though. The cultural group responsible for checks notes “shaming people who have the wrong bubble color in texts”?, suddenly think they’re the one’s being unjustly preached to? The joke in this image is not the one OP thought they were making.
I’d never pay money for a porn game, but I feel if it was gifted to me, I’d play it to completion. At least for the experience to say I did. And hey, if it turns me on and I learn something about myself, win/win.
Fantastic watch that highlights the issue I am talking about. Thanks for sharing that.
The problem is we’re linking it to appearances instead of maturity.
The problem with sexual relationships between adults and minors is two fold. First, the minor in question hasn’t had time to fully develop the emotional intelligence to healthily and safely engage in a sexual relationship. Second, there is an innate power differential between a minor and an adult: usually the adult has means of supporting themselves, something akin to solidified social supports and experience, education and knowledge necessary to live without the day-to-day support of others. You put these together, and you have a relationship that, even with the absolute best of intentions, becomes inherently abusive. The adult holds all the power in the relationship, and the minor is left with no choice but to worship the ground they walk on, and worse, they have not developed the emotional intelligence to identify it.
The problem with these 2000 year old loli’s is not their body; the problem is that they’re often child-coded. They act like children. They do things that highlights their lack of knowledge and inexperience. What is often played off as a cute girl anime trope is in reality an indication that this is someone who you can conquer, dominate, and hold power over in a sexual relationship, and you can feel “good” about doing so, because you’re, with the best of intentions, just helping them learn through your loving relationship. So what if you’re fucking her while you do so. (/s on that last sentence just in case)
There is nothing wrong with finding petite women attractive. 30 year olds who look like teenagers are not a problem. Hell, as long as we’re on the topic, I’ll shock most people by arguing that admitting that a 16 year old has developed into an attractive and desirable person isn’t even a problem, as long as you’re doing so from a position of respect rather than intent. The issue is neglecting to recognize the power differential between you and that 16 year old, and convincing yourself that it’s okay to engage in romantic and sexual acts with them while uttering deranged statements like “they’re very mature for their age” or “I’m helping them learn and grow so it’s okay”.
Child coded characters are a problem, and hiding the magic number that supposidly discerns whether or not they’re fuckable doesn’t suddenly make things okay.
Not because of the content, but because of groups of men all reinforcing this behavior.
I genuinely know more women than men that act like this. I can’t say you’re entirely wrong about the problems with normalizing behaviour and the like, but simplifying it to “men are disgusting and know nothing of 'real, actual women” when real, actual women are sometimes equally disgusting is, well concerning.
This particular brand of behaviour is usually about rejection of social norms far more than it is ever about the objectification of women. People who have been rejected by society like to take back the power by rejecting the norms of that society.
Right?! Watching it get worldwide acclaim was this strange experience, because Act 3 was nearly unplayable. Meanwhile, Acts 1 and 2 were such masterpieces that it’s hard to call the game anything other than amazing. Criticizism felt misplaced, but the widespread acclaim it received was toom
I am glad it is a much more polished, finished feeling game now, and we can look back at it as the standard games should be held to, moving forward, but I’ll still be disappointed in the way we failed to get what was initially planned.
He can do his job while failing to understand or accept what a transgender student of his is going through, as long as he, you know, does his job, in which the act of respecting and protecting the rights of his students is a core requirement. Creating an environment where the student feels safe and accepted is base level requirement for being a teacher. Choosing to actively disrespect a student when they’re only asking for a completely reasonable, socially accepted courtesy is strictly not doing his job.
It is no one’s “religious right” to create a hostile environment for another, and to do so targeting a minor is abuse. It’s no wonder he was barred from the school.
Fucking Amen. Again, I am disappointed, but it is a great game in its current form and, particularly because WotC is involved, I do not blame them at all for their decisions regarding BG3.
Screw 4k, but 120+ hz is amazing. I can barely stand playing things are 60fps anymore. I really notice it when game dips.