Glide

Yes and no. For one, many vegetarians and vegans would agree, so on some level, sure, that's a very defensible opinion. Secondly, North American sensibilities would call it a moral tragedy to sell cat or dog parts, so at some point we have to accept that what is and isn't okay to kill and consume is a question of cultural bias as opposed to moral truth.

Lastly, you can accept the state of the food chain without holding the belief that those at the top of it are "better" or "worth more". I don't eat beef because I am, in some universal truth way, worth more than a cow. I eat beef because I accept that in the chaos of existence, this is where the chips fell. I do not feel a sense of superiority for being able to do so. If you're going to get really strict about it, I'd define "murder" as the act of killing for the sake of killing, and say that killing for consumption and in some cases survival is different. But even then, I recognize that this is bias. If you want to call murder the act of taking a life, I've murdered a lot in my life, and I don't intend on stopping any time soon. Mosquitos won't squish themselves.

The question of intellect and understanding and the weight of these qualities in the value of a life is a dangerous road to wander down, so I like to keep in perspective that we're all meaningless specks in the grand scheme of the universe. Otherwise, the questions get even more challenging: to say a truly reprehensible thing, what happens when we replace the human or the animal in question with an exceptionally low functioning human being? Do we now say their life has little value because they can't contribute to society, they can't understand the state of their own existence, and in many cases they're not even capable of verbal communication? Does it become okay to choose to let them die, as in the original question? Are they suddenly fit for consumption as cattle? Or does the responsibility fall on the more capable to protect them?

Appraising and tiering life is an incredibly dangerous road to go down. You can choose any example of historical racism to see just how dangerous it gets. Life is life, and the strange differences between what's "okay" and what's not is luck more than anything else. Even as I consume a steak while my dog begs for the scraps, I believe it's important to keep an understanding of how we got here, else hubris allows us to justify basically any atrocity.

I dislike the belief that human life is worth more than any other animal.

Even if we're going to argue that, because of intellect or the ability to grasp out own existence or whatever arbitrary philosophical reason we'fe going to come up it, a human life is in general more valuable than that of a cats life, my "worst enemy" would have to be someone so morally corrupt that removing them from the world would make it a better place. This makes is a very pointless question.

A stranger is more of a real discussion. The stranger is enough of an unknown factor that I think I could assume that allowing them to die is likely to have a worse impact on the world, so it makes sense to save them. I certainly wouldn't be able to say so with enough certainty to fault anyone for disagreeing with me, though.

The mission is finished when you complete the last major objective.

Extraction is a bonus objective.

This makes so much more sense.

I watched the gameplay trailer and was so confused as to why Ubisoft thought it could get away with so blatantly ripping off Dead Cells.

Still confused why it's in the "triple-i" showcase, though. I know the definition of "indie" has become more and more loose as of late, but I'd think the core concept of being self-published would have to be a pre-requisite.

Honestly people will ruin whatever after a few generations when they don't see the negstives anymore.

Why am I still paying those IT security folk? We haven't had any data leaks in years!

Distributor of Science.

Ain't no Geneva Convention in space.

There already is a cap of 2 mechs per stratagem per mission.

What a misleading title. Actively developed live games that started more than six years ago is not the insinuation that this title suggests. People aren't spending 60% of their gaming time playing 6+ year old content.

My favorite part comes in 6 years when the Conservatives have lost again and they're campaigning on all the problems they caused in heir tenure while blaming said problems on the Liberals.

I tried the game two or three times sitting down with the "I want to play a space sim" mindset and could never get past the tutorial. Then the next time, it had clicked that it's a survival crafter that just happens to have a space theme. When I sat down with that mindset and perspective on what I was in for, I suddenly throughly enjoyed the game.

The game just does a really bad job of showing you what it is trailers and other media. Sure, all the things it shows off are there, but they're not the core of the game.

The Monty Hall problem is not a paradox, and I'm hesitant to call it a conundrum. It has a very simple solution. The "point" of it is that people inherently don't like that solution because it challenges their instinct to stick with their first choice.

Vampire Survivors.

The android version is free with optional benefits for watching ads. If you buy any of the paid DLC (~$2 per DLC?) you are given a menu option to disable the "watch an ad for free shit?" prompts, but they're hardly in the way if you don't want to pay a cent. Playable offline, controller supported and is tbh a massive game.