Counterpoint: Brian Thompson has murdered more people than The Joker ever would have even without Batman saving victims.

To me, the other side of the death penalty discussion is the Batman and Joker thought experiment, as described in detail by Jason Todd (Red Hood), but it’s perhaps a strawman because it’s taken to some extremes.

It’s easy to look at “The State” as an evil mammoth organization that can rarely apply fair sentencing - but that’s a bit doomer to the entire idea of a justice system. I do think standards of certainty should be much greater than what they are, but as with the Joker, there has to be a reasonable limit.

This is why God designed knees the way he did. He secretly hates humans and wants us to have an expiration date.

There’s no one single approach.

1. Stop overincentivizing HFCS; as a sugar replacement, its main feature is suppressing natural hormones that tell you “I’m full, let’s stop eating”. It’s a corn product, which often makes it a very “American” thing to support.
2. Design walkable communities. Many people can’t schedule out time to get exercise, but should get it regularly through their job or community.
3. Make programs designed to promote home cooking, ensuring people have time in their day to do it, adequate kitchen space, and buy-in from their family or lifemates. Many people live off take-out or ready meals, which means they don’t know what goes into it, and also don’t socialize with family.

I don’t see how it’s some advanced technical process. It all comes down to the quandary of who to trust. If you don’t trust enough people, you don’t grow the movement. In this case, all it took was one figure to whom they overextended how much trust he was worth.

Yes, we heard. Isn’t this article several months old?

Oh, wait, it’s not.

It feels weird comparing this to Cairn, a climbing game I just played.

Everyone tells Aava “There is about a 95% chance of you dying climbing this mountain. And there’s nothing at the top.” She still does it, and it feels like a remarkable achievement against nature. Yet any achievement on US Highways just feels kind of gross by comparison.

Liberals claiming that people should not be thrown in concentration camps for their skin color does not mean they oppose immigration reform. Most of them agree the policies need small improvements, but can also point to great improvements in life through immigration. In decades past, America (even under Republican leadership) actively sought it, and received economic booms through it.

You claiming that the message of helping people is losing needs some MASSIVE citations, since it stands against everything that most of us have grown up around from a basic moral standpoint, as well as well-founded research about how societies improve based on mutual support, rather than selfish hoarding. In America, for instance, most of the vocal anti-immigrant sentiment doesn’t actually come from people living in areas that have been “ruined” by immigrants - it comes externally from people who have been given entirely facetious narratives of these immigrants, hallucinating a reality where the cities are “burning in chaos” from their impact.

If you want to discuss the point, don’t dare with the “It’s gonna happen” fallacy, used by Trump to try to claim Denmark (no), Russia to claim Ukraine (no), or hateful bigots to push racial ideologies masked as “anti-DEI” (no).

And if you believe there is actually a “problem to address” that goes beyond the R-word, then you’d need to point out what actual, tangible issue oppression and violence thinly masked behind an “Immigration enforcement” label somehow solves. Elucidate the point. Maybe it’s “Well, everyone knows immigrants are an issue! Just look at the job market!” So say “JOB MARKET”, and we can discuss that. Otherwise, I doubt there’s much to talk about, because it likely DOES go back to the R word, no matter how much you want to defend it by sheer populism.

It’s like the “Every time you swear in front of your kids, you must do the Bad Dad Dance” rule. The idea is it’s a punishment that never comes into effect, lest you consign your news program as grifter nonsense.

Can you affirmatively, concretely define what an “open border” or a “closed border” means? Much like “woke” or “DEI”, it’s a term that I have not seen full agreement on, just opposition.

Whatever answer you give should try to account for any and all forms of business relationship, education partnerships, or trade that the lifeblood of that country already lives by.

There’s a pretty good fantasy detective game called Dragon Detective, where you use all 5 senses on most parts of a crime scene. Use of “Taste” is originally treated as a joke by the coleads, but since the main character is immune to most poison and has a fine sense of taste, he really does lick everything for details.

My preferred curse for journalism is that every time they announce the statement of someone totally unqualified, like Trump, they must also announce the statement of someone equally unqualified, like a drunkard on the street who believes they’re all lizard people that were sent by the Egyptian pharoahs.

I’d really like to find more media convincing people of the fallacy of neutrality. The closest I can think is a line in Hitman World of Assassination.

I mean, it’s fair to say it’s a gamble. We just often remember the successes. Team Fortress was known as an intense Quake-style game, and there were some reactions at the time of the TF2 trailer that Valve had lost the sauce. Bioshock followed the future cybernetic style of System Shock. Prey went from native Americans and aliens to being a child predator. wait, might’ve misremembered the last one.

Could be an echo effect. 90% of people don’t really pay attention to gaming media or hate trains - they just see a cool new game in stores while most of their attention is elsewhere.

The “echo” element would be that if most of their knowledge of gaming is from playing things, not reading about them, they may decide “Wow, Sony usually makes great stuff, but last one I bought wasn’t great. I may sit this out.” I sort of saw that with Assassin’s Creed Unity / Syndicate. Unity was shitty and released with terrible bugs, but Syndicate was sort of okay - and Syndicate was the one that saw lots of lost sales.

Ok, to be fair, this is one way-too-easy game in a general release cycle of really good hard ones. Let’s not stretch one bad point out to a huge trend.

Something I realized pertains to the first car crash.

It’s likely a LOT easier to animate if the devs don’t need to account for exactly how fast the player is slashing up tires. Plus, they don’t need magic tricks to account for a 1…N long stretch of road that accounts for however long the player needs to chase them down (eg, Uncharted 2’s fantastic train level)

So you can definitely see that laziness and a rushed development timeline would just shove out something that looks okay but has no actual gameplay because it’s a cinematic moment playing itself.

I think I understand the approach.

Pro-consumer data/service companies have privacy policies where they don’t share someone’s info. The sole exception is when that person has used those services to break the law. The suit may have the intent of establishing that fact so said services consider providing the user’s info.

I don’t necessarily think them withdrawing and going offline is strong proof that accusations against them are true. Sometimes people do socially withdraw when they think they’re being witch-hunted.

That’s not necessarily saying the accusations of AI were false, either. I only saw them briefly and am not great at picking out AI indicators. Just warning that we sometimes self-select signs of resistance as “My hypothesis is correct!”

I find he’s dramatizing the dichotomy, but I always found this arranged argument lacking.

Imagine you have a budding farmhand, a hard-working local, in mind when you go to the local farmers’ market to “support local farms”. But that’s wrong, isn’t it? Because the farm owner pays that hand a static salary. Their exact success or revenue off one extra bag of apples isn’t going into that hand’s pocket.

But it’s also related; that farmhand has better job stability, more chance of a bonus, less pressure to advertise well, if the farm is making a comfortable salary.

Now, the one part I’ll admit is this logic doesn’t work as well in corporate atmospheres; where CEOs fire as many people as possible, reward no one for good performance, and would rather fudge numbers than sell a good product.

But I’d also wager a lot of commenters shortcutting their logic to “company bad, pirate games” aren’t always taking a critical investigative eye to how companies treat their people. After all, “I get free game” is a strong motivator to believe a certain way.