It would blow my mind even if his opponent had zero qualifications. The fact that she’s actually competent and charismatic just adds to the surreality of the situation.

“Having the capacity for free will” is not even remotely the same as “being capable of making completely disposessed choices in every single circumstance”. When considering one’s options, different people in different situations give different weights to different factors.

Consider a person acting under the threat of being murdered if they don’t comply with some demand, like in an armed robbery. The fact that making certain choices, like refusing to cooperate, is in practice nearly impossible for them in this case has no bearing on whether or not they “have the capacity for free will” in a general sense. Likewise someone being manipulated by a person they fell in love with.

In the same vein, a narcissist is strongly compelled by internal factors to act only in ways that gratify their overinflated ego. While it may conceivably not be 100% impossible for them to go against this compulsion, it is extremely unlikely that it will even occur to them to do so, and given that it does occur to them to do so, it is extremely unlikely that they will choose that course of action. They act in predictable ways for this reason. The weights they place on certain factors are consistently different from average. This is entirely unrelated to the question of “free will”.

Thankfully a lot has changed since then. Back then not even most Democrats thought he was as unhinged as he’s been acting in public since Kamala Harris took over the ticket.

… with blackjack and hookers.

Termux has been a thing for years.

In other words, the consent of a corporation is more important than the consent of a human being… for the public distribution of that human being’s likeness in an intimate context. Holy dystopia, conservatives are fucked in the head.

Yes, I’m just explaining it, not justifying it. What I means is “don’t get worked up or upset about it because this is just human nature and while you may be able to change this particular manifestation of it, you will never fix the underlying problem”, not “don’t try to change people’s minds when they’re wrong”. You’re right to be teaching people some discernment. Just don’t suffer when they refuse to listen.

I’m not one of the people flinging insults at this guy. I just understand why others are doing it. They see that it was a monetization guy from Ubisoft and they flip out. Is it a rational and objective reaction? No, but people are neither rational nor objective most of the time.

Well, surely we can agree that it’s an unfortunate job title at least - it’s easy to see why the people are dogpiling on him. If it actually were the money guy saying this, I assume you’d have no objection to the public reaction?

Every public accusation is a confession.

Look, much as the heavily online audience likes to pretend otherwise, most people making these games are perfectly nice, care about what they do and even have some degree of attunement to their audiences.

Sure, most people involved in these projects do. But for any given team, if you told me you knew for a fact that exactly one person in that team wasn’t, and asked me who I thought that person was, I’d guess “the money guy” every single time.

EULAs don’t have to say “you own this forever” because it’s implicit. Just like when you buy bananas at the grocer you aren’t forced to sign a EULA that says you can eat the banana or make a smoothie with it but can’t use it to make nuclear weapons or commit war crimes.

Let’s break this down: a product is an object that is delivered to a buyer. A service is an action or group of actions that is performed for the buyer. If I have to keep running my servers for your game client to connect to, push updates or offer tech support, I am providing a service because it requires me to keep doing something for the thing to work. If, on the other hand, all I do is give you some code you can run entirely on your machine - and it doesn’t matter if I give it to you on a CD, a floppy, via digital download or if I print it out as a big book for you to type yourself into a hex editor - then our transaction is finished when I deliver it to you and you pay me. There isn’t anything to license because now you own that copy of the code. My participation in what you do with it is finished, just like the grocer’s is finished when you leave his store with the bananas.

Do you understand now?

[Citation needed.]

If the importance of women’s issues like reproductive freedom were overrepresented relative to other issues, this would definitely account for at least part of this difference. But “importance” itself is already a very subjective concept. It’s hard to put numbers on these things and create a scoring system that’s actually useful.

Congratulations, you have successfully redefined imprtant words in a way that makes your understanding of them fundamentally incomoatible with other people’s, rendering clear communication impossible.

I don’t know why this was your goal, but I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming it was intentional, because the only alternative is that you are less intelligent than a particularly dense house plant.

No, crimes exist for whoever isn’t in power. There are several crimes that can only be committed by rich people, such as those related to banking and the stock market, formation of cartels* and monopolistic/anti-competitive practices, etc. But conveniently the criminals are only prosecuted when they are the political or commercial opponents of whoever happens to be in charge at the time.

*Not the drug kind, the “a small group of companies with a combined market majority conspires to fix prices while pretending to compete with each other” kind

Rotated 180 degrees.

They didn’t say better for whom.

Does drag have proof that the other user is a statistical model, or is drag guilty of dehumanizing others to fit drag’s agenda just like a Nazi would?

It’s easy. He chose an arbitrary number that was very big but just shy of 99% unrealistic, according to his own flawed judgement.