Sentrovasi

This is how they move in Xiangqi, Chinese Chess, because if the one straight in front of them is blocked, the move is illegal.

And the Crusades were done out of a lust for more land, and sexual assault of minors were done because some priests are also pedophiles. You can't No True Scotsman this way because all of these ideologies can be used as excuses for justifying heinous actions.

It doesn't make it magically not a part of the problem, and I think that's what people have been saying about the terrible practices in religion as long as there's been this problem. It would be hypocritical and disingenuous to downplay the way that atheism and secularity has been used to justify extreme behaviour - the idea that atheism gives rise to only the nicest extremists is such a silly hill to die on.

Yes, in the name of re-educating them from their dirty Islamic faith.

Look, I'm atheist too (aren't we all) but I'm not far enough into the groupthink to think that atheism can take the asshole out of people. Every group has their fundies, and pretending that atheism somehow only turns people into hipsters is disingenuous.

Moreover, at the point that people make atheism part of their identity rather than just a void absent of religion, they have created an in-group and people who can be "adherent" to it. People can do things in the name of atheism, both good and bad, once they start seeing it as us-vs-them.

Which is a little ironic, since I feel part of what makes being an atheist so nice is that we can have a little more objectivity as to what makes and breaks belief groups in general.

If I'm used to playing tabletop and wanted to play digital D&D, I don't really want to have to play completely differently than on tabletop. Having ranged characters being unable to utilise their maximum range increments because of RTwP is something that annoys me.

And it's not like I can't, it's just incredibly fiddly. Blaming players for not "wanting to learn" an experience that is less enjoyable for them is disingenuous. You wondered why people don't like RTwP, and I shared why: it's nothing to do with not being able to deal with the speed (your "just pause!" remark meant this, I assume), it's just a less optimisable experience when solutions like "waiting until the fight is set up" can take literal actions.

(Also syncing attacks is such a pain when everyone can have offset internal timers just because someone had to move one step further to get into position before taking their queued action.)

It's what makes spells like Web and Grease so important, like I said in my original reply, so I already had my own solution, but it's a fundamentally different game.

Sorry I'm coming in late, but one example I can give you is I absolutely hated having to lead my Fireballs because of casting time and the enemy running towards me with Haste and different movement speeds. No amount of Pause will change the imprecision.

(Liberal application of Web or Grease helped though, but I cannot stand RTWP for that reason).

I don't have any skin in the game, as I don't use the app nor any other, but the userbase for the Fediverse is like a hundred times smaller than Reddit at least. The same work on Reddit that could earn $200 is only going to earn $2 here.

I don't know what the price should be, but it makes sense that it goes up.

In another very real sense, their users chose the instance they're on. People were asking at the beginning what the difference between each instance was. This is how the admins have chosen to administrate and moderate. Maybe it's the users who should recognise that the shoe is on the other foot.

Fwiw though, I don't disagree with the choice to defederate.

At least on other instances, they may be subject to more stringent moderation. It's easy to say "just ban them" when you're not the one who will have to manage all 20000 of them.

Math determined that dropping the bombs saved more lives than invasion through conventional means.

I'd be hesitant to trust the math too far, especially since it's based on many assumptions as to how the war would have played out despite one side being severely outgunned.

Call me an anti-military cynic, but I'm sure a bit of it was also the idea that they now had a nuke, and wanted to see what kind of damage it could do. Perhaps the numbers there were better than if it had been dropped on any other viable target (especially a European one): that math, at least, I can believe.

And were the over two hundred citizens who died for that policy happy to do so? Again, it's about a tradeoff, and I'm not going to fault them for the one that keeps Danes alive.

The two examples in your later paragraph are wholly different cases: the second is a completely different use-case and the first one is actually less morally unambiguous than you think.

But even people who like making stuff would be able to devote more time to their work if they were given the means to sustain themselves through their work without needing to work another job, wouldn't they?