something765478

> In my experience there's a substantial number of women who are fans of something like overwatch, but not of actually playing Overwatch. They like the designs and the world, they make fanart and fics and such, but they don't actually play

I'm the same way with Warhammer 40K. I love the lore, but have no interest in actually playing with the miniatures.

> Isn't it kind of misguided to approach this as men studying women and trying to make more things that appeal to them?

Why would it be misguided? There are plenty of works that are created by women that appeal to men (Harry Potter, Animorphs, Full Metal Alchemist), so I don't think there's anything wrong with men trying to make something that appeals to women.

I always found it funny that even though many people are reluctant to eat insects themselves, they have no problem with eating insect vomit (aka honey). I suspect that getting people to eat more insects is just a matter of marketing; after all, the "best", most expensive coffee in the world is made of out civet poop.

Following your organization's data security practices is not immoral. To me, refusing to accept a PDF is no different than running a cash only store and refusing to accept credit cards as payment.

> the far right are bereft of original ideas and always co-opt other pre-existing concepts.

That's not unique to them: Good artists copy; great artists steal.

> Many people don't choose what OS they use for work, and even when one can pick, the environment we exist in is one where being less productive is often hard to afford.

Sure, but I also think that a lot of the issues with Windows 11 don't really matter much if its just used as a work OS. For example, I refuse to upgrade my home PC to 11, because I don't want Microsoft to spy on me; however, when I am using my work computer, I know that I am already being spied upon, so that's not a concern for me.

No, I'm pretty sure they would have. I remember during the primaries, Hillary tried to attack Obama by showing him in a "Muslim" garment.

Well, frankly, that's exactly how it should work.

If the paper vote is the source of truth, then the database just seems unnecessary.

I believe they do. When people talk in person, there is a lot of non verbal communication that give context to their words (smiles, shrugs, side glances, etc). Even when it's just people talking over the phone, the way they pronounce words carries information (it's a lot easier to tell if someone is being sarcastic if you hear their voice, for example). So, emojis are useful for providing that missing context.

I do. I touch type, but I still like being able to see the letters that I am pressing.

> you're identifying specifically with violent raiders who killed peaceful monks

That's not that surprising; figures like Caesar and Genghis Khan are still being worshiped today. Hell, most famous European monarchs are famous because of their violence. It's a lot easier to forgive murder when it happened centuries ago.

I've heard that the reason why marijuana is so strong is because it was illegal. The sellers wanted to have stronger weed to make it easier to transport; much like how during prohibition, people would prefer to import distilled alcohol, instead of beer.

I'm curious, do you also think alcohol and tobacco should be banned? I definitely believe that marijuana use can lead to negative consequences, but I still think it is less dangerous than either of those 2 substances.

> Dutch cops say they told him to stop and delete the material, but he allegedly refused, saying he would only do so if he "received something in return."

Assuming the cops aren't making this up, the arrest actually seems pretty reasonable.

> and each hour yields more learning due to neuroplasticity

I don't think that's true. As an extreme example, it takes a newborn a couple of years before they can start speaking a language; an adult can learn a few basic phrases in an hour or so.

> Most people are too appearance and fashion-conscious to want to wear tech on their face

Have you seen the Ray Ban meta glasses? They already look pretty close to existing fashionable sunglasses, albeit with a visible camera.

> and I don't see many people wanting to carry TWO expensive tech gadgets (and worry about charging/losing/forgetting them)

They already do; plenty of people carry a smart phone, a smart watch, and airpods.

> seeing as photos and video is core to what people want from their mobile device, it seems that the smartphone will continue to be the form-factor of the future, and I expect these other next-gen form factors to fail.

People use smartphones to avoid being bored, but there are situations when it's unacceptable to use them (i.e. in a meeting); I could see smart glasses being used for that niche.

> What if Google or someone else comes out with an AI-centric "personal assistant" device so compelling that it massively ups the bar as to what customers expect from a mobile device (in same way that iPhone did at launch)?

Knowing Google, that personal assistant would probably be shut down within a year.

Eh, even those polytheistic societies had their own inquisitions. Socrates was executed for defying the gods, and lots of Christians and Jews were persecuted because they refused to accept that the emperor was a god.

Pretty common at airports; of course, the `parking` only lasts a few minutes at most.

I realize that this may not be an appropriate comparison, but I was thinking of cars; there are absolutely scenarios in which driving faster than the speed limit is the correct decision (i.e. trying to get someone to a hospital).

> If a train exceeds its permitted speed for any reason, the system intervenes immediately.

Does the system automatically slow down the train, or does it notify the engineer? I would imagine that there are some scenarios where going over the speed limit is the correct choice.

Yeah, I had to get rid of my youtube plus subscription because I was getting too addicted to the shorts.

> he was sent to the Slough House due to a mistake someone else made.

No, he was sent to Slough house over his reaction to that mistake. He disobeyed orders, caused panic at an airport, and assaulted a civilian. Now, that would have been fine if he was trying to save lives, but the whole thing was just a training exercise! He deliberately put people in danger just to massage his own ego; he absolutely deserved to be "exiled".

While I did see some problems with their approach (i.e. doing the IRB reviews retroactively instead of doing them ahead of time, and not properly disclosing the experiments afterwards), I think this research is valuable, and I don't think the authors were too unethical. The event that this most reminds me of the Sokal Squared scandal, where researchers sent bogus papers to journals in order to test those journal's peer review standards.

I think they should have gotten permission from IRB ahead of time, but this doesn't sound like they were researching human subjects? They were studying the community behind the Linux kernel, and specifically the process for gatekeeping bad changes from making it to the kernel; they weren't experimenting on specific community members. Would you consider it human experimentation if I was running an experiment to see if I could get crappy products listed on Amazon, for example?