Why should a game's content be censored for the sake of people that don't even want to play it? Why should a classic and well established story trope like a "damsel in distress" be off-limits because an unconnected group of moral busy-bodies has decided it is sacrilegious?
Should we be demanding Rom-Coms be completely changed because their tropes are unpleasant for African-American men (and men in general)?
Can we not just let people make the things they want and the things that people actually want? No one likes propaganda.
If you want to drive slower why don't you just move over with the other people that want to drive slower? Is your desire to drive 0.5km/h faster than them somehow more important than the people that want to drive 10km/h faster than you? Entitled ass indeed.
I wouldn't say political exactly; just puerile tribalism. They view these departments as part of their tribal identity and anything that isn't in favour of their tribal identity must be an attack on their tribal identity.
That is absolutely not what happened.. How have you made so many opinionated posts in this thread when you obviously have no idea what is going on? They went through rounds of edits with reviewers.
You are reaching pretty damn far to try and hand waive away the problems in some academic fields. If a food safety lab says "trust us our processes make sure there's no shit in your food" and someone passes shit through the system would your response be "well the system is only good when shit-free food is put in"?
You keep posting absurd rubbish to try and, i don't know, convince people that the researchers were in the wrong for exemplifying in an undeniable way that these fields have zero standards of quality. You aren't doing it. It doesn't matter how many semantic leaps you make if a field of study can't tell parody from legit research then anything coming from those fields is completely untrustworthy.
It wasn't really all that much time nor do I see how that makes a difference. If your field can't tell the difference between parody and sincerity then it's definitely not academic.
What is needed is some academic rigor and this "stunt" shows that there isn't any. If papers are being graded on their political affiliation then the whole system is already useless and deserves to be regarded as such. It's not like these purposefully absurd papers aren't any worse than papers that are already coming out of those fields.
You cannot publish a paper about it because their peer-review process is not based on anything other than having the correct politics. And going against those politics means anything you have to say is wrong. We have a group of people that will publish mein kampf in an academic journal as long as it targets the correct group and you are complaining about the person that is pointing this out. What the hell is wrong with you?
Hey, if someone from the social sciences want to try to sneak satirical papers into math and science I say go for it. I just don't think they would be quite this successful.
I may enjoy seeing what a top skilled game of rocket league looks like but that doesn't imply I have the urge to invest the thousands of hours required to get myself to being top skilled.
Fossil (and other manufactures) make what they are calling "hybrid" smartwatches. They are exactly what you are saying except they do have a bluetooth radio. They claim year long battery life with their built in (replaceable) battery though.
I don't want to pretend that they didn't screw up. I just am unconvinced that dropping some of the features that I may have liked wasn't a good strategy in the long term. And I only say that as a software developer working on a product that has to support a tonne of features that aren't really worth the effort.
How can it be quickly forgotten when even a year later we still have people saying that its bad reviews were caused by Russian interference, misogyny and basically anything other than it being a bad movie?
It's a bad movie and we should all forget about it but you just can't, can you Mojo?
If the popular vote result and the electoral college vote result are wildly different, then people may choose to infer that the electoral college vote is no longer fair.
If all of your users are complaining about bugs/speed etc and only 1% use a certain feature you may find that that feature isn't worth supporting in the long run. If they were the only browser that had that and their market share was shrinking then it clearly wasn't an important feature. Sorry, it's a reality of software development.
For some of us that is a positive enough reason. At the end of the day I use very little of the "value adds" bolted on to modern browsers and all of them handle the basics pretty well. I use Firefox because of nostalgia and them not being Google or Microsoft but that doesn't make Firefox perfect.
Saying the electoral college is working as intended in no way implies we are joining any discussion. You say it should be abolished because the results didn't line up with the popular vote. Most people think it is obvious that the two will differ at times because otherwise there would be no reason to have the electoral college. Democrats saying it should be eliminated because they lost it is the most fascist thing I have ever seen.
Slashdot Mirror
Why should a game's content be censored for the sake of people that don't even want to play it? Why should a classic and well established story trope like a "damsel in distress" be off-limits because an unconnected group of moral busy-bodies has decided it is sacrilegious?
Should we be demanding Rom-Coms be completely changed because their tropes are unpleasant for African-American men (and men in general)?
Can we not just let people make the things they want and the things that people actually want? No one likes propaganda.
If you want to drive slower why don't you just move over with the other people that want to drive slower? Is your desire to drive 0.5km/h faster than them somehow more important than the people that want to drive 10km/h faster than you? Entitled ass indeed.
In Ontario the unwritten rule is 10 over in town, 20 over on a normal highway, 30-40 on the the big split highways.
I wouldn't say political exactly; just puerile tribalism. They view these departments as part of their tribal identity and anything that isn't in favour of their tribal identity must be an attack on their tribal identity.
The difference between a whistleblower and a conspiracy theorist is proof.
That is absolutely not what happened.. How have you made so many opinionated posts in this thread when you obviously have no idea what is going on? They went through rounds of edits with reviewers.
You are reaching pretty damn far to try and hand waive away the problems in some academic fields. If a food safety lab says "trust us our processes make sure there's no shit in your food" and someone passes shit through the system would your response be "well the system is only good when shit-free food is put in"?
You keep posting absurd rubbish to try and, i don't know, convince people that the researchers were in the wrong for exemplifying in an undeniable way that these fields have zero standards of quality. You aren't doing it. It doesn't matter how many semantic leaps you make if a field of study can't tell parody from legit research then anything coming from those fields is completely untrustworthy.
I thought they got caught by someone that calls out absurd papers coming from those fields?
It wasn't really all that much time nor do I see how that makes a difference. If your field can't tell the difference between parody and sincerity then it's definitely not academic.
What is needed is some academic rigor and this "stunt" shows that there isn't any. If papers are being graded on their political affiliation then the whole system is already useless and deserves to be regarded as such. It's not like these purposefully absurd papers aren't any worse than papers that are already coming out of those fields.
You cannot publish a paper about it because their peer-review process is not based on anything other than having the correct politics. And going against those politics means anything you have to say is wrong. We have a group of people that will publish mein kampf in an academic journal as long as it targets the correct group and you are complaining about the person that is pointing this out. What the hell is wrong with you?
Are you suggesting that you want security research done by philosophers?
If they find a security flaw then yeah I do.
Hey, if someone from the social sciences want to try to sneak satirical papers into math and science I say go for it. I just don't think they would be quite this successful.
No one ever watches people talk about sports.
I may enjoy seeing what a top skilled game of rocket league looks like but that doesn't imply I have the urge to invest the thousands of hours required to get myself to being top skilled.
Fossil (and other manufactures) make what they are calling "hybrid" smartwatches. They are exactly what you are saying except they do have a bluetooth radio. They claim year long battery life with their built in (replaceable) battery though.
I don't want to pretend that they didn't screw up. I just am unconvinced that dropping some of the features that I may have liked wasn't a good strategy in the long term. And I only say that as a software developer working on a product that has to support a tonne of features that aren't really worth the effort.
How can it be quickly forgotten when even a year later we still have people saying that its bad reviews were caused by Russian interference, misogyny and basically anything other than it being a bad movie?
It's a bad movie and we should all forget about it but you just can't, can you Mojo?
If the popular vote result and the electoral college vote result are wildly different, then people may choose to infer that the electoral college vote is no longer fair.
What else should I take from that?
If all of your users are complaining about bugs/speed etc and only 1% use a certain feature you may find that that feature isn't worth supporting in the long run. If they were the only browser that had that and their market share was shrinking then it clearly wasn't an important feature. Sorry, it's a reality of software development.
For some of us that is a positive enough reason. At the end of the day I use very little of the "value adds" bolted on to modern browsers and all of them handle the basics pretty well. I use Firefox because of nostalgia and them not being Google or Microsoft but that doesn't make Firefox perfect.
Can Russians not like a bad movie now without it being a diabolical plot to overthrow the Democrats?
Saying the electoral college is working as intended in no way implies we are joining any discussion. You say it should be abolished because the results didn't line up with the popular vote. Most people think it is obvious that the two will differ at times because otherwise there would be no reason to have the electoral college. Democrats saying it should be eliminated because they lost it is the most fascist thing I have ever seen.
Presumably we would like to avoid "barely surviving" by not knowingly walking ourselves into the same situation.
Yes, censorship is completely unrelated to human rights.