Gamer*

The video shows them pointing the gun over his shoulder. He also was interviewed after, so if he was arrested, he was let go immediately after.

They’ve already gotten one from the South African government. Though they did say they disagree with the letter, so, they should be good

I, too, thought it was interesting they considered programming as the IT industry. I mean, sure, you may use scripts once and a while, but that’s very different from a software developer, or someone else who works with/writes code for a living.

if it’s useful to you, then why not use it?

I think arguments can be made to avoid using something even if it’s useful to you. For example, burning fossil fuels is useful for humans, but it will destroy our ability to live on this planet. Of course the pros and cons have to be weighed in every situation. But in regards to the (granted, rhetorical) question about why not to use it, I’m sure valid answers could be given.

To be fair, they did say you can buy it discounted if you wait. To me, as far as the original question goes, pre-ordering the game or buying a marked up “deluxe” version isn’t worth it when you can get it a year later for 50% or more off. If you’re willing to wait a few years, you can easily get them often 80% off or more, and they’re often less buggy because they’ve been patched already. Dark Souls 3 has already gone on sale for 50% off a few times, as has Return of the Obra Dinn(never heard of this, btw), and Baldur’s Gate 3 has already gone on sale for 10% off despite having been released August 3rd.

The secret: at the end of the game leave a key combo (like a cheat code) that skips the tutorial. Anyone familiar with the game could just find it online any time they want to replay it, but new players wouldn’t know it exists.

I did use sources as a big point, but it’s because it’s the easiest to see. Even if we are having a conversation that’s opinion based, a lot of the conversation can be misinterpreted just because of different world views.

I think just about everyone wants what’s best for everyone, but different people see the solution to that differently. What is the “best” for someone? In what areas of their life? Burning fossil fuels offers a lot of jobs, but doing so destroys the planet. Except some argue that it isn’t destroying the planet, and that we’re being lied to. But let’s assume it climate change is real, if one side is saying we need to do away with fossil fuels because it’s destroying our planet, the other side may hear that they want to take away their source of income (how they put a roof over their head, feed their family, enjoy life). And within that conversation, there can be innumerable amount of different understandings based on the people you grew up around, that I can’t even really list examples because it’s too nuanced.

If you want to talk about abortion, the debate is really about when the fetus is a human. It is generally agreed that killing a 1 year old baby, for any reason (financial struggles, the child was the conception of rape, unplanned) that killing a 1 year old child is not okay, regardless of your pro or anti abortion stance. So then you’d be arguing when does the life cross that threshold to definitely not okay? Is it at birth? In which case was the day before it born okay to kill it? Most aren’t okay with late term abortion, but everyone has the line they think it’s okay (with some the line is before the egg is fertilized). Not many people are upset if someone takes a plan B (some people are, but they’re the minority), so stopping the process that early is fine. So then the line would be somewhere between the two, and that’s an extraordinarily complex subject for people without medical degrees to try and discuss (and complex for even those with medical degrees). But of course there’s the aspect of it being the choice of the mother, since it’s the mothers body. In which case you could instead talk about the (obviously) flawed scenario: while you’re sleeping, someone is hooked up to you as a dialysis machine. You wake up to find this was done to you. They need to be connected to you for 9 months to live, and if you disconnect them at any point you will kill them. Is it okay for you to pull the plug? Honestly, I think there’s a lot of valid arguments for either side for that scenario, and both people could be totally right. Both parties have to accept the fact that the other person’s viewpoint has validity to have a peaceful political discussion, but it’s difficult when your own viewpoint makes you feel that they are killing people, or stripping others of basic human rights. Then you get emotional, you become irrational, and you get angry at the other person. It’s just all to likely to happen, we are emotional creatures after all, not machines. And once you start getting irrational, you become more set on your current viewpoint, less likely to hear what they are actually saying, and more likely to misinterpret what they are trying to convey.

This is just two examples of highly controversial topics, but they’re controversial because there’s nuance to it. To be on the same page about all the different parts of the topic is nearly impossible. Not to mention we already have opinions on a lot of it. I’m guessing several people reading this feel inclined to share their opinion on some of the things I said. I don’t think there is anything any online platform can do to have an entirely open discussion. To leave it entirely open for anyone means there will be tension, insults, anger, and whatever else. If you get a few people that can restrain their emotions to have a logical discussion and actually hear what others are saying, you could do it, but then it’s not an open discussion.

this

Politics is nearly impossible to discuss with anyone, anywhere… The problem lies in the fact that nobody has the same foundation for discussing such topics. Probably the biggest issue is what people consider a reliable source of information. If you cannot agree that site xyz is stating things that actually happened, then how can you discuss anything political?

Honestly, I think the pain in discussing politics has more to do with today’s culture than anything with Lemmy specifically. It just so happens that Lemmy got popular around the time that “fake news” and misinformation became so extremely prevalent.

“Not to be nit picky” proceeds to nit pick and be wrong about the subject you’re nit picking…

• Merrium Webster: a: marked by no appreciable drop below initial horizontal line of flight; b: so close to a target that a missile fired will travel in a straight line to the mark

• Cambridge: aimed or fired directly at from a close position

• Dictionary.com: aimed or fired straight at the mark especially from close range; direct.

Imagine a journalist using a dictionary.

To be fair, it’s a little easier if you’re in the medical field, because rhino- is actually used as a medical prefix

An ear, nose, throat doctor’s full title is actually Otorhinolaryngology

The problem isn’t getting your new from YouTube. But rather random YouTube channels. It’s like saying “Do people really get their news from random news sites”

The AI is just being used to create the content itself. The upload process is still just a script. The AI can only adjust parameters set by the person, and the person creating the setup likely isn’t adding in any of the other factors

Which part are you trying to be careful with believing? The dead bodies are on camera.

If the part in question is who killed them, there are multiple witnesses saying it was Israeli forces. But let’s assume they are all lying, or were deceived by Hamas: why would Hamas interrogate and kill Palestinian women and children? If anything, they would use them as body shields, no? They can hide out in schools and hospitals so that in order for Israel to attack them, they’d have to kill innocent people too. And to think Hamas would do it to make Israel “look bad” seems interesting. It’s not like any war crime charges are going to be brought to Israel. Maybe they want more citizens of other countries to get riled up to get their governments to stop funding Israel, but that seems like a lot of forethought for Hamas, no? And to also guarantee all the witnesses would claim it was Israeli forces?

Does it not make more sense for it to have just been Israeli forces? Do you sincerely believe some Israeli troops would never do such a thing?

It’s fun to think of them as the same people. But the reality is that they’re two different people, and it’s just changed who is considered right.

I appreciate the correction. Though I do ask that if you say it’s outdated, you provide at least a brief explanation as to why. My understanding was that transgender was for those who identified as a different gender than their own, and transsexual were those who had medical procedures to change their physical sex.

🤔😜😆😬😮‍💨

🤣

I think you raise valid points. My counter argument to you would be this: how does the average strength/dexterity/whatever measurement of sports of cisgender woman compare to the average transsexual woman? While one transsexual woman can still be beat by many women, it could arguably be unfair that their transition put them in the top ranking of the women’s league, even if they aren’t number 1.