I, too, thought it was interesting they considered programming as the IT industry. I mean, sure, you may use scripts once and a while, but that’s very different from a software developer, or someone else who works with/writes code for a living.
As in, the pandemic reduced revenue causing layoffs?
I can’t work anymore because of covid
Why can’t you work anymore because of covid? Do you have a weakened immune system so you can’t risk being exposed to covid, or did you get covid and now have long covid symptoms? If it’s the second one, what long covid symptoms are preventing you from working? I believe you, but it’s just so vague that I’m not sure what you’re referencing
Idk if it’s failing that’s the key to success. I think failing is inevitable, but it’s actually using those failures to learn and improve.
if it’s useful to you, then why not use it?
I think arguments can be made to avoid using something even if it’s useful to you. For example, burning fossil fuels is useful for humans, but it will destroy our ability to live on this planet. Of course the pros and cons have to be weighed in every situation. But in regards to the (granted, rhetorical) question about why not to use it, I’m sure valid answers could be given.
To be fair, they did say you can buy it discounted if you wait. To me, as far as the original question goes, pre-ordering the game or buying a marked up “deluxe” version isn’t worth it when you can get it a year later for 50% or more off. If you’re willing to wait a few years, you can easily get them often 80% off or more, and they’re often less buggy because they’ve been patched already. Dark Souls 3 has already gone on sale for 50% off a few times, as has Return of the Obra Dinn(never heard of this, btw), and Baldur’s Gate 3 has already gone on sale for 10% off despite having been released August 3rd.
Well monitor stands need to keep up
The secret: at the end of the game leave a key combo (like a cheat code) that skips the tutorial. Anyone familiar with the game could just find it online any time they want to replay it, but new players wouldn’t know it exists.
I did use sources as a big point, but it’s because it’s the easiest to see. Even if we are having a conversation that’s opinion based, a lot of the conversation can be misinterpreted just because of different world views.
I think just about everyone wants what’s best for everyone, but different people see the solution to that differently. What is the “best” for someone? In what areas of their life? Burning fossil fuels offers a lot of jobs, but doing so destroys the planet. Except some argue that it isn’t destroying the planet, and that we’re being lied to. But let’s assume it climate change is real, if one side is saying we need to do away with fossil fuels because it’s destroying our planet, the other side may hear that they want to take away their source of income (how they put a roof over their head, feed their family, enjoy life). And within that conversation, there can be innumerable amount of different understandings based on the people you grew up around, that I can’t even really list examples because it’s too nuanced.
If you want to talk about abortion, the debate is really about when the fetus is a human. It is generally agreed that killing a 1 year old baby, for any reason (financial struggles, the child was the conception of rape, unplanned) that killing a 1 year old child is not okay, regardless of your pro or anti abortion stance. So then you’d be arguing when does the life cross that threshold to definitely not okay? Is it at birth? In which case was the day before it born okay to kill it? Most aren’t okay with late term abortion, but everyone has the line they think it’s okay (with some the line is before the egg is fertilized). Not many people are upset if someone takes a plan B (some people are, but they’re the minority), so stopping the process that early is fine. So then the line would be somewhere between the two, and that’s an extraordinarily complex subject for people without medical degrees to try and discuss (and complex for even those with medical degrees). But of course there’s the aspect of it being the choice of the mother, since it’s the mothers body. In which case you could instead talk about the (obviously) flawed scenario: while you’re sleeping, someone is hooked up to you as a dialysis machine. You wake up to find this was done to you. They need to be connected to you for 9 months to live, and if you disconnect them at any point you will kill them. Is it okay for you to pull the plug? Honestly, I think there’s a lot of valid arguments for either side for that scenario, and both people could be totally right. Both parties have to accept the fact that the other person’s viewpoint has validity to have a peaceful political discussion, but it’s difficult when your own viewpoint makes you feel that they are killing people, or stripping others of basic human rights. Then you get emotional, you become irrational, and you get angry at the other person. It’s just all to likely to happen, we are emotional creatures after all, not machines. And once you start getting irrational, you become more set on your current viewpoint, less likely to hear what they are actually saying, and more likely to misinterpret what they are trying to convey.
This is just two examples of highly controversial topics, but they’re controversial because there’s nuance to it. To be on the same page about all the different parts of the topic is nearly impossible. Not to mention we already have opinions on a lot of it. I’m guessing several people reading this feel inclined to share their opinion on some of the things I said. I don’t think there is anything any online platform can do to have an entirely open discussion. To leave it entirely open for anyone means there will be tension, insults, anger, and whatever else. If you get a few people that can restrain their emotions to have a logical discussion and actually hear what others are saying, you could do it, but then it’s not an open discussion.
Politics is nearly impossible to discuss with anyone, anywhere… The problem lies in the fact that nobody has the same foundation for discussing such topics. Probably the biggest issue is what people consider a reliable source of information. If you cannot agree that site xyz is stating things that actually happened, then how can you discuss anything political?
Honestly, I think the pain in discussing politics has more to do with today’s culture than anything with Lemmy specifically. It just so happens that Lemmy got popular around the time that “fake news” and misinformation became so extremely prevalent.
To be fair, it’s a little easier if you’re in the medical field, because rhino- is actually used as a medical prefix
An ear, nose, throat doctor’s full title is actually Otorhinolaryngology
You can make it sound gross, but you may be damn well surprised if you ever try some of it.
It’s fun to think of them as the same people. But the reality is that they’re two different people, and it’s just changed who is considered right.
I said it gives the appearance of something
You said you feel that people are either lazy or unknowledgeable based on how they write. I am saying that is an unsympathetic feeling to conclude based on someone’s writing.
It’s like they just typed whatever popped into their head without any consideration of how to convey it.
Your personal feeling is that this is a bad thing, I assume. I am challenging you to view it differently.
the reading experience should be considered
What about the writers experience? Why aren’t you considering them? My point is that everything you say about the writer in regards to their poor English, or thoughts not being fully fleshed out, can be interpreted differently than your initial view.
I didn’t comment on emoji use, but rather just the assumptions you made based on someone’s English. Though I understand why you mentioned it, since the thread is about Emoji use.
Intelligence comes in more forms than just written language. Words can express emotion, but so can dance, painting, singing, even a glance can express so much. Why do you think it needs to stop at emoji’s? Your inability to understand what they are saying with that emoji is not a failure of the emoji, but your ability to interpret it. That’s like saying dancing doesn’t convey emotion because you don’t know what it is they are trying to convey. Perhaps you just need to learn more ways of expressing emotions?
I do think Harris will win, but the fact that it’s this close is disconcerting.