Morlark

joined 2 months ago
[–] Morlark@feddit.uk 5 points 3 weeks ago

No, it's not you, the joke just doesn't work.

[–] Morlark@feddit.uk 12 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

So in other words, the documentary was so successful in decrying the rampant hyperconsumption that was accepted in its time, that such rampant is no longer considered acceptable or normal. And on that basis, you consider it to be facile, obvious... "problematic"?

No shit its conclusions were already obvious to educated people. They were never the target demographic. Literally nobody references Supersize Me as a "study". It isn't, and it hasn't ever claimed to be. It's a shock story to grab the attention of the least well-informed segment of the population. That you're trying to call it out for not succeeding at being something it never claimed to be, and even more so for succeeding at the thing it did try to be, is not a problem with the documentary.

Whenver you come up with similarly hot takes, the comments always end up being filled with a you offering litany of obtuse bad reasoning.

[–] Morlark@feddit.uk 2 points 3 weeks ago

Ah, sure, the youths these days are so violent, they're always going about the place besieging castles and knocking down fortifications.

[–] Morlark@feddit.uk 5 points 3 weeks ago

Being a proud maritime nation, sure we should be celebrating this by having each denomination of note show a different famous vessel?

£5 is Boaty McBoatface.

[–] Morlark@feddit.uk 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

If someone damaged my property, I'd feel pretty aggrieved... and it still wouldn't make them a terrorist. And the police wouldn't do nothing, because damaging property is a crime. That property being a few planes doesn't magically change the equation. Just like the government wouldn't be doing nothing if they hadn't designated PA as a terrorist organisation, because a whole raft of criminal charges would still apply.

Literally, and I want to stress this, literally nobody has suggested that PA should not face appropriate and proportionate consequences for their actions. And you knew that. You knew damed well that people have no problem with the government taking action, as long as that action is legal and democratically responsible. Yet you deliberately chose to dishonestly equate opposition to terrorist designation with support for them getting off scot free, even though that's an obviously false and mendacious equivalence.

You are not very skilled at this dishonesty malarkey. Consider yourself called out.

[–] Morlark@feddit.uk 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I think that's probably a fairly uncontroversial opinion. In the city-builder genre, Lethis: Path of Progress aimed to be the definitive city-building game of its time, hoping to match the peaks of Caesar and Pharaoh in the city-builder heyday. Instead, Lethis ended up being a huge flop, precisely because it slavishly copied the mechanics of Caesar without understanding that games as a whole have evolved since then.

Lethis lacked certain quality of life features that now feel obvious and baseline. What's sad is that these features had already evolved towards the tail end of the city-builder heyday, in games such as Children of the Nile, and now feel glaringly obvious by their omission. Other city-builders that haven't been so tied to the classics have seen more success (although there's been no true breakout hits, sadly, no great renaissance in the genre).

[–] Morlark@feddit.uk 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I hate to have to point this out to you, but time limits in real life are also based on developer whims, and nobody here had a say in that. Giving yourself time to complete a task doesn't change the end limit, it just changes when you start... which is also equally applicable in games. Your logic doesn't really pan out when you think it through.

[–] Morlark@feddit.uk 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The inside of the cone is coated in chocolate to prevent it from getting soggy from all the melted icecream. It tends to pool at the bottom because that's how gravity works.

There is no "random" plug of chocolate. It's an inherent function of the product. No matter what the flavour of icecream is, the cone itself is inherently a chocolate product.

So yes, you are, in fact, knowingly purchasing chocolate products, as evidenced by the fact that you're currently complaining about all the chocolate in these cones that you keep purchasing. If you hate chocolate that much, then maybe just don't buy it?

This is entirely a problem of your own making. And people are correct in pointing out that your responses have been nothing but toxic.

[–] Morlark@feddit.uk 5 points 1 month ago

No. Everywhere uses the same terms, you just didn't understand the question.

The result of addition is the sum. The sum is calculated by summation of inputs.

The result of multiplication is the product. The product is calculated by __________ of inputs.

OP's question is: why can't the blank be "production", by analogy with "summation"?

[–] Morlark@feddit.uk 2 points 1 month ago

"Summation" already means something else, and funnily enough words can have different meanings in different contexts without causing any confusion.

[–] Morlark@feddit.uk 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

OP literally emphasised the distinction between process and result in their post, specifically so that this exact confusion would not occur, and yet still everyone is talking about the word for the result instead of the process.

[–] Morlark@feddit.uk 21 points 1 month ago

A couple of guys couldn’t handle a few troll messages? Sorry, if we want an independent site, away from the hands of venture capitalists, you’re gonna have to tough it out and deal with a few nasty messages.

No they aren't. Clearly they don't have to, as they are in fact shutting the instance.

They're providing a service, as volunteers, for free, and asking nothing in return. By definition they get to set the terms on which they do that, and it is astonishingly selfish for you to expect them to do so under conditions that are clearly untenable, and blame them for this outcome when they cannot continue.

No. If you want an independent site, away from the hands of venture capitalists, you should've stepped up and volunteered to admin when they needed help.

view more: next ›