Yes, I know. But let's be honest. This is idiots(and yes, they're idiots) trying to justify people being awful on account of the fact that people are terrible.
I don't know if I could come up with a more self-fulfilling prophecy than that if I tried.
It's like "murder happens, so murderers aren't so bad". How far up your own ass you need to be before you start seeing that as good logic, it just invites contempt.
You're really a hypocrite. You don't recall the "calling you a stupid shit on virtue of making stupid arguments" and you being a petulant asshole pretending that was an ad hominem. Then immediately, in the very next post you made, doing the same thing regarding Jeff Bezos.
That you have double standards of that degree should be a legitimate reason to call into question your ability to judge these things as "objectively" as you pretend to. Now, I have no delusions that you're going to walk away from this with an appreciation of that criticism, but I'm also not going to stop calling you on it if you keep making your own standards a relevant point.
Nah, the wii version of Mario Kart was kind of a low point.
And I find that Trivial pursuit raises some serious objections from generally intelligent friends that they "aren't smart"(as if general intelligence had anything to do with knowing who "the football guy" for 1989 was).
But if you look past all that, and use some extremely simplistic logic about cognition, and throw in a dash of naturalistic fallacy, then your conclusion makes perfect sense.
Positive stereotypes about one group are implicitly negative stereotypes about every other group. Them being minorities or majorities just has to do with how power is exercised in the name of those stereotypes, but doesn't change the amount of prejudice involved.
"imprecise" meaning completely misconstruing things in a way to imply an outright untrue thing.
"Not a gamer" and "not playing one specific genre" are so far separate as far as concepts go, that I can't imagine a scenario where it could even theoretically be considered a relevant criticism.
I'm now going to knee jerk you as a shithead whose willing to see past some serious levels of dishonesty when it justifies your own opinions.
1. No, it's not, given that rather extraordinary evidence that people have harassed and threatened her already.
2. No, how can it possibly be sexism to attack obviously sexist people of unknown gender for posting obviously stupid shit
3. Still no.
4. And yet... you trust that these ACs are acting in good faith. Nope, sorry, your own proven history with being a tremendous hypocrite to me personally raises my suspicions that you're being tremendously intellectually dishonest here.
Oh yeah, sure, that's relevant to credible death threats.
She's just "being offended" that someone might kill her.
Christ this isn't a "PC police" problem this is "police" problem.
If you're just talking about her videos in general, I'm sorry that you don't like what other people paid to make. But if opinions shut down things that bothered you and other people liked, you'd better be prepared to video games to go out the window for the same reason.
Eh, I'm usually a pacifist when it comes to all the pointless conflicts the US gets involved in, but unopposed military hegemony ruthlessly expanding has a.000 batting average on helping anyone but the elites of the expanding power.
Yes, but now that's something that's executively enforceable. The cops CAN come knock down your door over it, and the state use of force would be justified.
Our whole legal system is a giant fence that's designed to protect you from someone bigger, more numerous, and better armed from messing with you, until we're good and sure that it's better off that someone did.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't need vendor lock-in when your product costs $100,000, and your customer can use at most 4.
Yeah, apparently "what engineer would ever design a product like that?" was the correct question to ask.
Because the answer is "no engineer"
Yes, I know. But let's be honest. This is idiots(and yes, they're idiots) trying to justify people being awful on account of the fact that people are terrible.
I don't know if I could come up with a more self-fulfilling prophecy than that if I tried.
It's like "murder happens, so murderers aren't so bad". How far up your own ass you need to be before you start seeing that as good logic, it just invites contempt.
I'm going to spoil the fun, and tell people who didn't watch the video/read the transcript that you're just making this up.
It does this:
$("#sdtranscript").toggle();
No, we've been over this.
You're really a hypocrite. You don't recall the "calling you a stupid shit on virtue of making stupid arguments" and you being a petulant asshole pretending that was an ad hominem. Then immediately, in the very next post you made, doing the same thing regarding Jeff Bezos.
That you have double standards of that degree should be a legitimate reason to call into question your ability to judge these things as "objectively" as you pretend to. Now, I have no delusions that you're going to walk away from this with an appreciation of that criticism, but I'm also not going to stop calling you on it if you keep making your own standards a relevant point.
That's not likely in a weakly typed language. Because the only overloads can be number of args.
These are not threats coming from fucking Somalia. Who do you think you're kidding?
But more seriously, though. Most of these new features are straight up things that python already does.
Const expressions? Since at least 2.0.
** syntax since forever.
integrated debuggers since 2.5ish
file size restrictions since never?
I mean... these are really kinda bad things to just now be getting to.
n/t.
Nah, the wii version of Mario Kart was kind of a low point.
And I find that Trivial pursuit raises some serious objections from generally intelligent friends that they "aren't smart"(as if general intelligence had anything to do with knowing who "the football guy" for 1989 was).
I knew I was oversimplifying. You're absolutely right.
Step 1: be a salaried employee.
Step 2: produce good results
Your hours will still matter, of course, but not as much.
No, you need to grow up past being a fucking child, and recognize that humanity is made of individuals.
(Not to mention most stereotypes are completely misrepresentation)
And they are scientifically proven to cause people to treat each other worse
But if you look past all that, and use some extremely simplistic logic about cognition, and throw in a dash of naturalistic fallacy, then your conclusion makes perfect sense.
Positive stereotypes about one group are implicitly negative stereotypes about every other group. Them being minorities or majorities just has to do with how power is exercised in the name of those stereotypes, but doesn't change the amount of prejudice involved.
Yes, every single country(with a standing government) has some kind of laws against actionable threats.
Every. Single. One.
"imprecise" meaning completely misconstruing things in a way to imply an outright untrue thing.
"Not a gamer" and "not playing one specific genre" are so far separate as far as concepts go, that I can't imagine a scenario where it could even theoretically be considered a relevant criticism.
I'm now going to knee jerk you as a shithead whose willing to see past some serious levels of dishonesty when it justifies your own opinions.
1. No, it's not, given that rather extraordinary evidence that people have harassed and threatened her already.
2. No, how can it possibly be sexism to attack obviously sexist people of unknown gender for posting obviously stupid shit
3. Still no.
4. And yet... you trust that these ACs are acting in good faith. Nope, sorry, your own proven history with being a tremendous hypocrite to me personally raises my suspicions that you're being tremendously intellectually dishonest here.
Yes, people seriously believe that.
It's sad, but the complete lameness of those people isn't a reason for disbelief.
Yes, those expectations are formally structured and called "laws".
Oh yeah, sure, that's relevant to credible death threats.
She's just "being offended" that someone might kill her.
Christ this isn't a "PC police" problem this is "police" problem.
If you're just talking about her videos in general, I'm sorry that you don't like what other people paid to make. But if opinions shut down things that bothered you and other people liked, you'd better be prepared to video games to go out the window for the same reason.
Oh, so because you're justifying the fact that GP is a damn liar, you're assuming I'm going to knee jerk at you?
That's a really weird attitude.
Eh, I'm usually a pacifist when it comes to all the pointless conflicts the US gets involved in, but unopposed military hegemony ruthlessly expanding has a .000 batting average on helping anyone but the elites of the expanding power.
Oh no. A technology exists.
Let me rephrase that. I cannot comprehend your objections.
Yes, but now that's something that's executively enforceable. The cops CAN come knock down your door over it, and the state use of force would be justified.
Our whole legal system is a giant fence that's designed to protect you from someone bigger, more numerous, and better armed from messing with you, until we're good and sure that it's better off that someone did.