loobkoob

I could see Rishi Sunak's takeaway from this being that of course, people should be paid less for days when they're sick.

If a car can receive OTA updates from the manufacturer, then it can receive harmful OTA updates from an attacker who has compromised the car’s update mechanism or the manufacturer.

There's potential for a very dystopian future where we see people assassinated, not via car bomb but via the their cars being hacked to remove braking functionality (or something similar). And then a constant game of security whack-a-mole like we see with anti-virus software. And then some brilliant entrepreneur will start selling firewalls for cars. And then it'll be passed into law that it's illegal to use a vehicle that doesn't have an active firewall/anti-virus subscription.

It almost feels like the obvious path things will go down. Yay, capitalism...

I'm not totally opposed to software being used in cars (as long as it's tested and can be trusted to the degree mechanical components are) but yeah, OTA updates just seem like a terrible idea just for a little convenience. I'd rather see updates delivered via plugging the car in (and not via the charging port - it would need to be a specific data transfer port for security reasons). Alert people when there's an update, and even allow the car to "refuse to boot" if it detects it's not on the latest version. But updates should absolutely be done manually and securely.

It's the length of the combined total working lives of an entire football stadium full of people.

The reason it’s overwhelmingly called “climate change” instead of global warming now is because of language change pushed by billionaire foundations.

I do think "global warming" struggles to convince some more simple people anyway, unfortunately. Because while the average temperature of the globe is increasing and causing the changes in climate that we're seeing, I've come across far too many comments from people saying things like "global warming must be a myth because it snows more than it used to" and things themselves smarter than all climate scientists combined for that observation.

Of course, those same people probably think global warming is good because they like their summer holidays so perhaps their opinions shouldn't matter much either way!

Their hits are all pretty mid.

Gimme Shelter definitely isn't mid, and is one of their biggest hits. I'd argue it's their best song, in fact.

The idea that non-game software doesn’t involve creativity or spit balling or iteration is ridiculous. But from what I’ve seen it does involve a lot more waiting for consensus and thinking too far down the road, which are political activities aimed at being right (as measured by vice presidents) rather than productive activities aimed at getting something done or making something cool (as measured by your own name in credits of a completed work offered to the public).

I think the key difference is what the goal is. With non-game software, there's usually a goal of we want something that achieves X - let's create, spit-ball and iterate until we achieve that. X is a measurable outcome - it requires some creativity, spitballing and iteration, but it's easy to see if/when you've succeeded.

With games, things are a lot more subjective. The goal is create, spitball and iterate until you have something that people find enjoyable. You just keep going until you recognise that you've got something worthwhile. It's a "you'll know it when you see it" situation, rather than something you can track your progress towards. Sometimes you can follow a formula/template and iterate on another games' mechanics/systems and people will like it; sometimes you can do that and people will call it a soulless copycat instead. Sometimes games are technically good but just don't feel enjoyable; sometimes they're enjoyable despite any technical issues they might have.

Amazon and Google's issues stemmed from treating game development like any other software development.

I agree, but at the same time, I think a lot of people are still trying to build out their subscribed communities list here - especially because a lot of would-be communities are fragmented across multiple instances. Outside of just stumbling across communities you like because they've been mentioned in a comment section, or checking out communities that links have been crossposted to, looking at the all feed is the best way to discover things, I think - unfortunate though it is.

To be honest, I'd love to see a "weighted all" feed, if that's even possible. So include everything, but let the user set custom weights for communities, so ones you weight highly show up more often (and nearer the top) and once you weight lower show up less often. There are some communities that I only really see if I look at my subscriptions because they don't tend to show up in the all feed much. And there are some communities - a lot of meme ones, for instance - that I've blocked because they were clogging up the all feed; if I could just weight them lower so if still see them but far less often, I would do that instead of blocking them.

“It’s absurd that we live in a society where people feel the urge to tell me to greet them with ‘sallam alleykum’”.

There's already a huge difference between what happened and your example here. Your example is "people saying you must do X" . What happens when it comes to gender is people asking, "please do not do X".

They're not saying you must refer to them as, for instance, she/her, but rather asking that you do not refer to them as he/him/they/them/whatever. You're free to just not use pronouns to refer to them at all if that suits you better - you can refer to them by name instead. You're left with plenty of options and only a handful of restrictions.

Your example, on the other hand, is completely restrictive; you must take this single course of action, and there are no alternatives.

For what it's worth, I do think we're in a fairly transitional stage (ha) of how we as society deal with transgenderism. I think people being made to change their pronouns in order to feel comfortable is silly. Not because those people are silly - they're just doing what they can to feel comfortable with the restrictions society has placed on them - but because society and language are silly.

Why do we refer to people by gender at times when it's completely irrelevant? Someone having a penis, or male hormones, or whatever other "masculine qualities", is irrelevant 99% of the time when I refer to them as he/him. If I say, "Donald Trump? Yeah, he's a corrupt idiot," then why does him having a penis have any bearing on the language I use there?

And why do we have such gendered roles in society? Why can't men just wear dresses and make-up and link the colour pink and still identify as men? Why can't women cut their hair short and wear baggy clothes and like engineering projects and lifting weights at the gym and still identify as women? I guarantee that if we could remove all those kinds of gender associations, you'd see a lot less trans people.

People transition because who they are and what they like, and what society says they have to be (based on their gender) are at odds with each other, and it's literally easier for them to change gender in order to be allowed to be themselves than to change society. Being trans isn't some kind of personal failing; it's a failure of society to accommodate people who deviate even slightly from its rigid roles and expectations.

The ideal future, such as I see it, is for there to be no trans people because no-one feels a need to transition - they can just feel comfortable and accepted as they are. But until then, you need to recognise that there's a societal issue and stop being a part of it. It takes such a small amount of effort on your part to use the pronouns someone requests, or to avoid using pronouns at all, and it makes such a huge difference to them to be gendered properly. So just be a decent, respectful person and accommodate their wishes and stop making their life worse.

Mine's similarly very good at recommending things that appeal to me. It does a good job at recommending a mix of videos from channels and topics I regularly watch and new things that appeal to me. It also recommends albums to me somewhat often that I end up really enjoying, too.

I definitely understand people not wanting to have content served up to them by algorithms, but I will say my personal YouTube experience is a happy and interesting little bubble, for the most part. I don't get any of the weird, hate-fuelled conspiracy videos, or the "AI reading out Reddit post" videos, or any of the other nonsense that I see other people have to deal with. Out of all of the social media algorithms I've experienced, it's been by far the best one for me.

An analogue would be: petrol stations stop being a thing as the world transitions to electric/hydrogen/whatever cars. You start working on a way to modify your car in some way to account for this - perhaps you plan on making your own biofuel, or manually converting it to a electric/hydrogen/whatever car. The manufacturer of your car hears about this, comes along to your house and repossesses your car and takes it to be crushed, despite it being something you own and that they should have no say in any more.

And if you’re getting a game 48 hours prior to release, you’re at least getting a finished game.

True. But, personally, I think it has all the downsides of pre-ordering but at extra cost. The game could be an absolute disaster (Suicide Squad, anyone?) and there's no way for anyone to know that. Not waiting to be able to properly inform yourself about what you're spending money on is so stupid.

I'm honestly reaching the point where I think pre-ordering games should be legislated against. Sure, it's only stupid people being parted from their money, but it's clear some consumers need protecting from themselves and it's only really the corporations that would lose out.

The Expanse is the first thing that came to mind for me as a counter-example when I read your first comment so I'm glad to see you mention it! It even plays on the exceptionalism idea in book/season 3 and 4 where Holden seems special because >!Miller is appearing to him!< and because >!he isn't affected by the eye parasites!< only to explain those things away with reasoning stemming from events that already happened in previous books. And any exceptionalism that comes after that is largely due to the reputation or skills characters have built for themselves rather than because they're "chosen ones".

If you haven't read the books, I really recommend them!