I still think this whole idea that we were going to get big tech (or anyone really), as owners of the modern mediums of communication, to act as the arbiters of truth and harmful messages was always a ridiculous notion. It's both not in their interests and not in their power.
The mainstream of the liberals and the left seem to have become so obsessed with policing speech that they've nearly completely given up on meaningfully improving the material conditions of people's lives. You win the narrative by delivering real results that people can see and feel, not by trying to ban charlatans from spinning bullshit.
Change the world, and the narrative will follow. Not the other way around.
There's a profit angle in terms of keeping wages down, but there's also a competitive angle. Having a bigger talent pool to draw on means you get better talent, particularly when you're in the top spot in terms of pay, quality of life, professional achievement, etc.
We should have culled all these cows, and kept culling them until nobody and nothing tested positive. And done it all a year ago. But apparently that was too hard, and now it's really just luck whether this becomes the next global catastrophe.
Not that I'm any kind of authority on the biases of publications, but I tend to think of ProPublica as more about investigative journalism than any political theory.
That's a neat tool. But it's giving me a slightly confusing result. I have a solar installation and I've plugged in the details so far as I know them, just to see if I'm producing about what I "should" be. The peak production month is about right, but the minimal production month is only estimated to be like 25% less than that. My system has more like 50-60% drop, and some quick googling suggests that's about normal.
Any thoughts on why this tool suggests a much smaller drop?
The media keeps talking about how they've learned their lesson about how to report on Trump; that they're not going to get spun up about all the noise he makes; that they're not going to let him switch the story every week; that they're going to focus on the real, material things that are going on.
Well here we are again, writing deeply concerned pieces about a handful of tweets (or whatever they're called in Trump land). And here Lemmy is upvoting them.
I would be careful with phrases like, "there is no contradiction." There is a comprehensible tension between free speech as the ability for anyone to say what they wish, and a prohibition on hate speech as a prohibition on saying specific things. Denying that risks damaging one's credibility because it can appear that we are merely refusing to acknowledge that tension.
I argue it's better to admit these tensions. And that's not an admission that the arguments for prohibition of hate speech are weak, but it is an admission that as real people in the real world, we can never have the comfort of a tension-free, contradiction-free theory for anything of significance.
I just had a mini-revelation that this looks weird because the "pupil" is on the surface of the contact instead of under the lens of the eye. These aren't bad contacts; contacts are just bad like that. Seems that post processing is really the only option.
It becomes useless as evidence unless you can establish authenticity. It just makes audio recordings more in a class with text documents; perfectly fakeable, but admissible with the right supporting information. So I agree it's a change, but it's not the end of audio evidence, and it's a change in a direction which courts already have experience.
If the argument is that SM2 is successful because it limited it's scope to execute a smaller number of features well, I don't think that holds up. It took on three different types of games and (imho) executed merely okay. What more could they have added? Open world? MMO?
I think the more plausible explanation for the sales is that it's Warhammer, it's pretty, and SM1 was good.
Who praised them? But I don't know what measure we'd use to determine the general reception of this particular feature. Particularly given that almost all video game journalism is mere marketing. So that's probably not a fruitful point to argue over.
Instead I'll offer the things that I think earn the competitive multiplayer a poor rating.
No skill or even experience based match making. Too many games are blowouts because all of the level 1 players were put on one team.
Teams are static once a match lobby has formed. If the teams are poorly balanced they will continue to be forever. Players can't even switch voluntarily. The only remedy is to bail on the lobby and hop into a different random one.
Classes and weapons are poorly balanced. The Bulwark is a key example of a too strong and not fun design. The Assault class, and melee in general is in a pretty poor state (unless you have an infinite defense shield that lets you walk up to people). Many of the weapon options for the classes are almost unusably weak, so class loadouts tend to be very samey. Grenades are spammy and the shock grenade blind duration is not fun.
Players are randomly assigned Imperial or Chaos marines. But there is basically no character customization for the Chaos marines, while the Imperial marines have 5 or 6 different sets. Either the enemy team should always appear to be Chaos with their NPC style, or they should have included equivalent Chaos customization.
Players have minimal control over which game modes they play. It's either 100% random or selecting a single mode. A configurable selection is a common multiplayer feature.
Map design is bland. This is perhaps a more personal preference, but I find the symmetrical, arcade arenas with no narrative character boring.
I still think this whole idea that we were going to get big tech (or anyone really), as owners of the modern mediums of communication, to act as the arbiters of truth and harmful messages was always a ridiculous notion. It's both not in their interests and not in their power.
The mainstream of the liberals and the left seem to have become so obsessed with policing speech that they've nearly completely given up on meaningfully improving the material conditions of people's lives. You win the narrative by delivering real results that people can see and feel, not by trying to ban charlatans from spinning bullshit.
Change the world, and the narrative will follow. Not the other way around.