I, an American

Irony, you say?

https://www.theawl.com/2016/03/the-vast-bay-leaf-conspiracy/

Tikka Masala is an Indian-Inspired dish which was invented in the UK by people with Indian cultural heritage. That’s about as concise a description as you can get without running into difficulties of definition - there’s no consistent way of defining what “being a dish” means without running into contradictions.

In fact General Tso’s is the perfect counter-example: Multiple Chinese people have told me they enthusiastically disown General Tso’s Chicken and explicitly call it American food. So if we say “a dish belongs to a country if it’s invented there”, then Tikka Masala is British (which I agree “feels” wrong); but if we say “a dish belongs to a country if it was inspired by the cuisine of that country”, then General Tso’s is Chinese, which, apparently not!

And that’s without even considering the question of how far “back” you should go with inspiration - what if a dish was inspired by how the Indians used food they got from the Persians who traded it with the Chinese - is it Indian food or Chinese food? (Idk if that’s historically nonsense, but you get my point) Why is the most-recent ancestor more important than the environment of creation?

laughs in WASM

Helps that Lemmy has orders of magnitude less content. After the third time refreshing with no new content, it gets much easier to put the phone down.

“they could just as easily present them in a way that wouldn’t be blocked” would be a more accurate way of phrasing it. Facebook is not the one blocking this content - rather, it’s detecting that it has been blocked (clientside)

I feel like you’re using “supercede” differently to the rest of us. You’re getting a hostile reaction because it sounded like you’re saying that EM is no longer at all useful because it has been obsoleted (superceded) by QM. Now you’re (correctly) saying that EM is still useful within its domain, but continuing to say that QM supercedes it. To me, at least, that’s a contradiction. QM extends EM, but does not supercede it. If EM were supercedes, there would be no situation in which it was useful.

“X depends on or is built up on Y” does not imply “X is Y”. Concepts, laws, techniques, etc. can depend or be higher-order expressions of QM without being QM. If you started asking a QM scientist about tensile strength or the Mohs scale they would (rightly) be confused.

With the jobmarket the way it is?

Historically awful? Don’t get me wrong, the advice is still solid, but this was a weird way to preface it - it’s the hardest time in my 10-year career to “just find a new job”.

And people give Python shit for significant whitespace 😂

Wel, I guess I’m rewatching that tonight…

(For the uninitiated: Thomas Middleditch and Ben Schwartz, aka “the guy from Silicon Valley and Jean-Ralphio from Parks & Rec”, did an improv series on Netflix - and it’s great)

The way the score is calculated is hidden from the public

I mean…technically, I guess, the specific parameters are hidden? But the meaningful actions - the ways in which you can improve your score - are extremely clearly advertized.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not exactly a passionate advocate for the system - but it’s nowhere near as obfuscated as people claim. And if you accept the premise that there needs to be some algorithmic way to evaluate someone’s creditworthiness, “their past reliability in repaying debts” is a pretty reasonable choice.

Yes, the same EU. The fact that it’s considering some poor choices doesn’t detract from the fact that it’s actions thus far have been positive and deserve appreciation. Real Life doesn’t split people neatly into heroes and villains.

It is absolutely insane to me that people rag on the Python packing ecosystem when TypeScript exists. Sure, Python’s not perfect (Rust and Go seem better, from the small amount I’ve dabbled with them), but way easier and more stable than any TS project I’ve worked on.

With a K!

Ah, a fellow VX Junkie?

“_Every person who has ever done in the past, has done it with and it had _” does not imply “_The only reason anyone could possibly ever do is with to achieve _”. That’s a valid reason to be cautious, but not a reason to make blanket statements about an entire category of thing.

EDIT: for Day1 DLC in particular, a totally valid and non-exploitative reason for it is “we had a release date that we absolutely had to hit (because of marketing, contracts, etc.), which necessitated calling a production halt well in-advance of the release date for QA and testing - but instead of moving on to the next project, developers worked on more stuff for the same game. If that was too complex or didn’t work out, we could drop it and no-one would complain; but if we’d kept developing it in the base game, and resulted in a slipped release date, there would be hell to pay”

When a company actually exists that utilizes your view of DLC, then it might be a valid criticism of the phrasing

No, that’s precisely the point I’m trying to make - “every example of X that has existed so far is Y” does not imply “by definition, X is provably and definitively always Y”.

You can claim that all DLC that has ever existed is predatory and exploitative (I suspect there are counter-examples; but, fine, whatever, not relevant to my point). You can say that, because of past performance, you are disinclined to trust future examples of DLC or give them the benefit of the doubt. That is all reasonable. But you can’t conclude “because all DLC so far has been bad, the concept of DLC as a whole is bad and can never be used well”.

As a super-simple example - here are some prime numbers: 5, 11, 37. Are all prime numbers odd? I can give you a bunch more examples if you want!

They smell bad?

Things that are opposites are not, in fact, the same.