Sort of? Ime you'll sometimes hear/see things like T+2900, meaning 2900 minutes after T (T being a common placeholder for "the moment the operation began"). But unless the mission started at 0000, T+2900 doesn't mean 0500, it means +2900 since T
Do you think there's such a thing as species dysphoria in the Star Trek universe? God knows we saw them trivially change the crew's race and back for every random survey mission, I'd love to try being a cute Andorian for a few weeks.
I didn't say subjective content, I said content about something subjective. Wikipedia contains a wealth of "one proposed explanation for", or "a common theory is" on any event or phenomenon, (of which many are covered). Objective reports of subjective statements. And the choice of which to use, which perspectives to include, is a form of bias. The reporting of which proposed theories for causes of historical events or meanings for literature are included, and which are left out, is a form of bias. One that cannot be seen through simply by "checking the sources". An article written with a slant is going to include sources that agree with its viewpoint and not include sources that do not, and checking the sources is going to show you those viewpoints, and not the ones that were left out.
Also, again, there are absolutely editors who will just wordlessly revert objective, factual edits, with clear, proper citations from accepted primary sources, just because it's their page or it doesn't line up with how they want it to be seen. Checking the sources won't show you that, either.
Even internally, there's a lot of complaints about the tone of the donation drives. What's scary is that these are the pleas that passed. Worse ones were vetoed by community vote.
It's literally a meme how you can't trust anything you see on there except for the most objective, undeniable facts, because you never know what page has been camped by an editor with an agenda or just a possessive streak. On anything even slightly subjective. I know there's good editors, I know it's a majority of them, but the problem is that the bad ones exist and so you can't trust any given page isn't poisoned.
Also, relatedly, the entire backend is an ever-growing morass of petty politics and tangled policies that serve mostly as a barrier to entry. They've been saying admin and power-editor retention is a huge problem for well over a decade, and yet they keep making it worse. At this point, the majority of their admins are from 2005, with only 10% from after 2010, because nobody bothers getting started when the prerequisites to making even a small edit can be learning the wikipedia legal system.
It's like training an artist who's never seen a banana or a fire hydrant, by passing them pictures of fire hydrants labelled "this is a banana". When you ask for a banana, you'll get a fire hydrant. Correcting that mistake doesn't mean "undoing pixels", it means teaching the AI what bananas and fire hydrants are.
Some prion diseases, including essentially all those known to affect humans, take decades to cause symptoms. If they hadn't died of something else, they would have eventually died of the disease.
Cannibalism isn't, speaking societally, dangerous because it gives you the disease. If you get it and die, whatever, that doesn't endanger anyone else. The problem is that cannibalism is usually a group affair, and that means one person with a prion disease can pass it on to many people at once, who won't show symptoms for essentially half a lifetime, and they might also be eaten when they die, spreading it to more people, etcetera.
My point is that you implied it's that the game industry isn't putting out demos. "The occasional game here and there every other year or so". But that's a false statement, the lack of demos in your life is your own doing
And even if they don't have a demo, Steam's refund system makes basically any game a demo; since you can refund for any reason in the first 2 hours, you can play the first ~90 minutes for free
I know the occasional game has released a demo here and there every other year or so, but I think I remember the last demo I played was Skate 3’s back in 2010.
That's.. pretty on-you, I have to say. Something like 2/3 of my gaming time is free demos off steam or the nintendo eshop. Steam just had their yearly Next Fest, with over 900 games dropping demos this month.
It's a lore thing from Five Nights at Freddy's. In 1987, one of the goofy haunted animatronics malfunctioned and gave a customer permanent brain damage. In-game, this is referred to as "The Bite of '87".
I mean, the premise was "vindictive or mean editors who ‘own’ pages and refuse to allow changes to ‘their’ article". The goodness or badness of the edits are not in question; there are editors who camp a page and find technicalities to revert anything that isn't theirs or that they don't like. Sometimes they don't even find technicalities, they just do it, relying on their own reputation and your ignorance. The fact that one has to learn to do an end run around them and engage in wiki politics, hell, essentially learn an entire second legal system, to "have the truth prevail" for even a minor fact with citation is exhausting. It filters out good potential editors who nonetheless have no time to engage in the behind-the-scenes drama proceedings. It's not like this hasn't been a known issue for years now.
Aggregating a biased list of sources is worse than not aggregating at all. I would rather someone not know a story at all than they know one side of it as "the truth"
Often, collecting and correlating sources that agree with one viewpoint of a complex issue, which is the whole problem we were discussing. If a wiki article is camped by an admin with a slant, as they often are, the sources do not represent some neutral middle ground or wisdom of the crowd, they represent the things that ended up in the article and nothing more. If you want to learn the facts of a controversial topic, why would you start with a potentially biased list?
📛Maven @ Maven @lemmy.sdf.org Posts 4Comments 303Joined 2 yr. ago
Sort of? Ime you'll sometimes hear/see things like T+2900, meaning 2900 minutes after T (T being a common placeholder for "the moment the operation began"). But unless the mission started at 0000, T+2900 doesn't mean 0500, it means +2900 since T