I just meant that that's often morality based, as in general public holds companies to some moral standard. Often it's a fairly low standard though, as you've pointed out.
I'm just going to quote another comment I wrote about this for starters
I’m talking about the company. They’re dogshit for releasing it in the state they did and slightly less so for ultimately fixing at least some issues and giving some of the promised features.
If the DLC and 2.0 make it better then it’s for sure a redemption arc
Not even close. Especially with the DLC, how would making paid DLC in any way redeem the company?
I'm not giving them kudos for finally fixing stuff and bringing stuff they should've had in the first place. Much less calling bare minimum like that a "redemption arc".
And it’s VERY clear from the way you’re talking that nothing they do could redeem them in your eyes.
They bungled the false advertising, hype and overall the state the game was in launch so bad that it sure is hard. Then again, all big gaming companies are dogshit like that and I haven't seen anyone else coming back either. And people keep forgiving them, buying their games and nothing changes. CDPR just had a bigger fall than the rest, coming off the Witcher 3 hype and having created the massive hype for 2077.
It was one bad launch, not a pattern of bad games or anything like that.
It was a massive overhyping and misleading of customers. Then releasing the game in a such a bad state. I just don't like it when any company does that,
Pretty interesting that those people are looking specifically for that certain category of material and that such a category exists separate from regular anime characters when nothing separates them from the rest of the anime characters.
you understand my point and can stop asking questions.
I'm not actually asking those questions to know the answer, it's just to see you running around in circles trying to avoid the obvious conclusion. Lolis are lolis because they're supposed to be recognized as kids, for their age and looks. People who specifically look out for material featuring drawn children in sexual situations or just in general to jerk off to it is looking at that material because they're drawn and identified as kids. Person who is sexually into that type of stuff is a pedophile. You're going around and around saying "but it's drawn, it doesn't mean anything". Yeah, it doesn't mean anything that they're specifically looking for drawn stuff featuring children. It doesn't suddenly stop mattering when it's drawn.
And unless you’re going to tell me that liking yiff makes you into bestiality,
If you're looking for stuff featuring animals meant to look like animals and jerking off to that then I have bad news for you.
I just told you how you misunderstood what I expected and you still insist on understanding me. That's funny.
Google is providing guidance, sure, but the driver, by virtue of being present, having eyes and a brain, and controlling the fucking vehicle is the one responsible for where the vehicle goes.
There's not just one person responsible for this. Driver, municipality, Google are all responsible in different amounts.
Google's guidance is nothing more than them saying, "Based on our data, this is the route we think you should take."
Yeah and they're responsible for giving bad guidance, same as the municipality is responsible for not closing down the route and the driver for mistakes they made.
That you think Google shoulders blame in this is actually kind of a sad commentary on how some of society views personal responsibility.
You completely misunderstood me. I take part of the responsibility (lol) for it.
It could be nice and maybe with simpler pictures it actually works so that it all blends well. But with photos I've taken I've had shit luck. A picture with green grass and grey concrete made a colour combo of the most awful shades of green and brown imaginable. None of those colours were in the actual photo either, it just sorta blended it all into colour vomit.
I'm talking about the company. They're dogshit for releasing it in the state they did and slightly less so for ultimately fixing at least some issues and giving some of the promised features.
If the DLC and 2.0 make it better then it’s for sure a redemption arc
Not even close. Especially with the DLC, how would making paid DLC in any way redeem the company?
Redemption arc would mean from bad to good. Not dogshit to slightly less dogshit. Maybe if they had given the DLC for free as an apology or something, but just fixing some of the issues years later isn't a redemption arc.
"It's not criminal so they didn't have any part or responsibility" is something I don't understand. Of course the routing was part of the reason this happened. Municipality's/landowner's part is how they hadn't closed to road, put up signage etc. Google's part is the bad routing. Driver's part is well, the ultimately the driving. Thinking the routing had no part in the death just doesn't make sense to me.
how does it make any difference how long the bridge has been out for
Ample time and opportunity to fix it, even being told about the issue. Of course the time makes a difference, if the bridge had collapsed 15 minutes prior then it would be less bad on Google's side for not having made the change.
Google aren’t actually responsible for updating a section of their map, Yes it would be great if they would do it, but they’re not actually legally required to do it.
Of course there's responsibility for the bad routing, even if they're not legally required to update the map/routing. I doubt the case against Google goes anywhere but to me it seems obvious they share a part of the responsibility for their routing.
They obviously have responsibility for their part... 🤦♂️
You are moving the bar
You previously replied to me asking if they have no part and said "that is the only logical conclusion"... If you didn't get what I meant you should've probably mentioned this moving the bar then and not after you gave a silly answer to the question. Better look if nothing else.
I just talked about responsibility. It by default is a wider thing than just legal responsibility.
And no, corporations are run by thousands of people all with a wide and diverse definition of ethical. I do not place ethical standards on them whatsoever.
That's fucking grim.
what public opinion will tolerate
What is that public opinion based on if not in part on moral judgement?
It was a dark and rainy night and he was following his GPS which led him down a concrete road to a bridge that dropped off into a river
I think that might've hampered his ability to see well. Not sure how visible the drop off is in general, not to mention on a rainy night, so it could look like everything is fine and then the bridge just drops off to nothing, so it isn't necessarily a simple case of "should've stopped if he couldn't see" either.
In any case, even though the "issue" is undoubtedly his since he died and if you mean responsibility then of course everyone is responsible for their driving. I'm just saying that (imo obviously) there's other parties responsible here too. Municipality/landowners for not fixing, marking etc the bridge so this doesn't happen. Driver for their part in the actual driving and decision made during it. But also Maps for the routing and not fixing the map even though they were informed of the issue. Since we don't know the specifics it's impossible to say specifically how much each part contributed, but I'd say most of the responsibility is on the municipality.
I'd say municipality/landowners, Google and the driver themself.
Municipality, land owners for not marking it, fixing it, making sure nobody mistakenly drives there. Google for routing him over it. Also the driver too for their part. Though not knowing the specifics it's hard to say how much responsibility everyone has exactly but I'd say most of it lies on the municipality/landowners. Depending on who is supposed to mark those things over there.
I mean, knowing a few flight attendants, probably