Sorry I rambled on so much, I am “stealing time” at my job and lost my train of thought a few times as I left and revisited this comment. :)
Totally didn't do the same thing...
Anyway, I mostly agree with you, just fyi regarding the german green party: Annalena Baerbock was their chancellor candidate, Habeck was effectively what in the US would be a president's running mate. A duo, but Baerbock was iirc always going to be chancellor if the greens got a majority. And yes, they have joint leadership of the party.
That policy has to do with the german voting system, where each party has to provide a list of candidates for each state. Then according to how many votes the party gets, proportionally many people from that list get into the Bundestag, the list is in order. And that's the one that had to alternate.
The greens as of last federal election are big enough to where this effectively isn't going to single out anyone, they will get a few candidates from every state into the Bundestag. However the principle of forcing the gender of slot 1 just left a bit of a bad taste. Still voted for them and will most likely do that again.
If people did this I'd just go back to muting calls too, at least from those not respecting it... I've clearly established to use calls only if it's important, and if I miss it I will call back asap. Honestly I think the only way you can get them to stop is by ignoring them.
Not the guy you replied to, but I'll give you one: if you are male, it is (or at least was last federal election) impossible to be at the highest spot of any candidate list of the german green party. There was a hard rule that spot 1 had to be a woman and then it alternates. The alternation rule seems pretty alright, but blanket excluding someone from the #1 spot because of gender is pretty blatant sexism. It doesn't matter that women were in that position and worse in the pretty recent past, 2 wrongs don't make a right (also ironically this kind of ignores other gender identities entirely but they'd probably be given the woman treatment as they're clearly generally disadvantaged, which seems alright). Something like having at least 45% at #1 of both men and women and then keeping the alternating rule seems a lot more sensible, or even flat out forcing 50% and flipping the genders each election.
I can also spend a very long time talking about how affirmative action in general feels more like the lazy route to achieve a somewhat better state since socioeconomic factors play a huge role in education and those heavily correlate with ethnicity, but it's unfair to exclude people based on their skin color (almost like that's racism by definition), but whatever. I haven't seen any cases of it being actually abused, and overall just fast tracking more representation of all sorts of people into all kinds of jobs and social groups will likely help a lot against racism in the long run. It just feels like the inferior means to that end.
Germany has things like giving disabled people preference in job applications given otherwise equal qualifications which I think is great as they most likely have much fewer options overall, and I believe that might be considered affirmative action too? I'm not super familiar given that that's not a term here.
Honestly the EU is fucked up in so many ways but somehow still feels far more competent at doing good for its citizens than basically any other government institution, even if it's of course not without its failures (looking at you, copyright reform).
Technically public still means you act in the interests of the owners, aka shareholders (at least in germany anything else is illegal), it's just that naturally that will always be profit for the majority.
The rate of kids that don't transition after being on puberty blockers is something like <2%. All I've seen is some people crying about regret rates increasing by a lot when it goes from like 1 to 2%. "It doubled!!!!!" (Should be obvious that it will go up a little the easier it is to get treatment).
In any case, while puberty blockers aren't without adverse effects, those aren't huge, so prohibiting them is utterly nonsensical unless a majority of kids end up not going through with it.
And if a child knows at age 7 that it's not the gender it was assigned at birth, that's not some puberty thing. Which is a significant portion of transgender people.
Everything here except the one expensive brand is just full plastic packaging. The one expensive brand used to have the window, but now removed it for environmental reasons.
When I realizes this I decided to switch to the more expensive brand, even if I'm very much paying for brand name, in the end it doesn't matter to me if a pack of spaghetti costs 89 cents or 2.09€ (even if it's like half my diet), but especially given the problems of microplastic I can't justify buying plastic packaged noodles.
Can't attest to their intentions but "speak for yourself" would be the continuation of the ken m "we are all x on this blessed day" meme, whether or not that's what you were going for.
Yea, from how you made it sound it seems similar to how it ended up being in nier - make a choice that does seem like it'll end the game, but really it's probably not very serious - credit roll, hope you saved recently. It would've very much benefited from simply autosaving at the correct time.
Imo it kinda depends on what kind of ending it is, if it's still conclusive but maybe a bad end, that seems alright. Just if it clearly leaves me unsatisfied I'd be annoyed. I'd still really prefer just having a reload option, but I'd also rather game devs stick to their vision, just like fromsoft ganes really don't need an explicit easy mode, it makes sense they'd also stick to this if they want to do it. It'll be great for some people, and others will hate it, and that's fine.
The random premature endings were already annoying in nier automata, and that did have save files. I almost never replay things, I get extremely bored. Took me forever to get through the second playthrough of nier automata as well, since that is so similar to the first.
If a game pulled that on me I just wouldn't play it ever again and watch a cut scene compilation or something.
There's like ultrasonic cleaning machines for glasses they're pretty great. For me getting my glasses clean properly takes forever, if I had such a service near me I'd probably use it sometimes (as it is I just don't bother properly cleaning them and just wipe them occasionally)
You can't just give everyone the same mouse and kb if you want it to actually be fair tbh, different people have different kbs and mice for preference and ergonomic reasons. Different switches, maybe tolerable. Different kb size, very awkward and will lead to misclicks. Different mouse size? Even different sensor position? You will lose some precision until you're used to it.
Though organizers could provide a specified model, and ban peripherials with features that are deemed unfair.
Specifying 1.50 instead of 1.5 also implies that rounding was done (from an original value between 1.495 and 1.504) so it would be misleading if anything.
Though I'm not sure I even understand what the original comment is getting at, significant figures do not change that 1.48 is less than 1.5, and it is relevant to say 1.48 instead of 1.4 as it is even closer.
We are, because people want luxury goods too. Post-scarcity is about being able to produce most goods with barely any human labor (would absolutely be true for food if every person on earth only worked in food production or to produce machinery needed for it), which we aren't even close to. AI and automation might get us there (though it's questionable when the cycle of just investing the newfound labor capacity into more luxuries will stop, if ever), but people are actively resisting that (reasonably so) because the current economic system basically everywhere is horribly rigged towards funnelling the excess wealth to rich individuals rather than improving the living standards of society as a whole.
Would it be evil to genetically engineer a cow that can produce milk without having to get pregnant? Seems much less evil to me than the current state of things.
Totally didn't do the same thing...
Anyway, I mostly agree with you, just fyi regarding the german green party: Annalena Baerbock was their chancellor candidate, Habeck was effectively what in the US would be a president's running mate. A duo, but Baerbock was iirc always going to be chancellor if the greens got a majority. And yes, they have joint leadership of the party.
That policy has to do with the german voting system, where each party has to provide a list of candidates for each state. Then according to how many votes the party gets, proportionally many people from that list get into the Bundestag, the list is in order. And that's the one that had to alternate.
The greens as of last federal election are big enough to where this effectively isn't going to single out anyone, they will get a few candidates from every state into the Bundestag. However the principle of forcing the gender of slot 1 just left a bit of a bad taste. Still voted for them and will most likely do that again.