Actually, the biggest tell is that for how long it is, it’s mostly noise with little signal. Some of it doesn’t even make sense, “check what instances or users you’re federated with”?

So like someone dumb trying to sound smart, or someome trying to fill space. See my previous comment about tankies.

You mean using subheadings? Yes, AI often does that, but it doesn’t have to, nor do people avoid it.

Half the stuff I write gets flagged as AI generated when put into a “”“detection”“” service because its too average. You can’t reliability filter AI text from non-AI text. Hell, even a lot of the tankie rhetoric here reads like a hallucinating AI, spitting out over-long sentences with little meaning and no overarching argument.

To try and answer what you’re asking genuinely, since I don’t see indication that this is bad-faith:

The reason African-Americans and some black people get a “pass” to use it isn’t because it isn’t offensive. Its because they’re expected to have a better understanding of their own oppression than someone who hasn’t lived with it, and because it can generally be assumed to not have racist connotations. The word has such heavy history that if someone who isn’t black uses it, it is usually (and reasonably) assumed to be racism. Even among those who are black, theres a lot of nuance, with many feeling uncomfortable with saying it, either because the word is so loaded that it can be offensive reguardless, or because they don’t feel like they’re connected enough to the history to have the “right” to say it (I.E. someone who grew up in a black-majority country might feel this way.)

Making immigration more difficult already benefits the wealthy. Not having birthright citizenship won’t change that.

I think you’re misinterpreting my intentions. I believe that making immigration and citizenship easier is best. I just also believe that Jus Soli is an ineffective band-aid solution, that doesn little to help the common man.

I’m not informed enough to be very specific in execution, but in my mind, immigration should be extremely generous. Ideally, I’d say it should be effectively unlimited, but I know there are economic considerations that need to be taken into account, such as the rate of housing construction. That said, I don’t feel confident enough to outline specifics beyond that. I have nothing against immigrants or immigration.

Its purely citizenship, and the political power it involves specifically that I believe shouldn’t be given out based on geographic location at one instant alone. Given that its effectively giving you power to change how the country is run, it should be given to those who are directly affected by how the country is run. Ideally, I’d almost want a system where someone can’t be more invested in a different country, although again, I’m not sure about specifics. Prehaps something along the lines of a limit of how much property can be owned outside the country relative to within the country, so regular people qualify easily, but someone can’t get citizenship while they own a dozen houses elsewhere. Again, I’m not an expert, and not trying to advocate for a specific solution, just that immigration be made easier and citizenship shouldn’t be something you can buy.

Edit: fixed a couple typos.

We don’t know for every one for certain, but we have plausable explanations or backgrounds for nearly every cryptid and mythological creature. Usually, the explanation is either a diseased animal, misidentified bones, or someone looking to make money.

So we give up with a half-measure, that helps the rich moreso than the poor without addressing the underlying issue?

This isn’t a helpful or sustainable approach. Should we give up on climate change because reducing carbon output is hard, or say, “Well, as long as you don’t use coal, its good enough.” Of course not. Not to mention that making immigration and/or citizenship more accessible isn’t an impossible task at all, esspecially relative to climate change or weath inequality.

In those few, extremely rare cases are enough to fuck up a nation’s politics, immigration isn’t the problem.

They’re rare, but not impossible, esspecially when it comes to the involvement of powerful/rich governments, corporations or individuals. We already have enough of that, no reason to make it easier for effectively no gain.

Edit: esspecially considering that ability to chose the location your child is born in is based primarily off wealth rather than moral character or anything else positive.

Its technically doable, but it wouldn’t be easy. The problem isn’t in making federated user authentication or servers, its just making a game that is flexable enough with powerful enough modding tools to be worth using compared to just making a game from scratch. Thats why, if you think about all the games in the genre, they all have significant limitations to what can be made in them (at least with any amount of polish).

As a simplified example, lets say you want the default mechanics set of your game to be a first person shooter. This means you use 3D graphics, optimized for higher-detail enviroments and include features that would be most useful for that, such as a simple optimized 3D physics system, and tools for making detailed 3D levels.

In this new game, someone wants to make a 2D platformer. What additional tools will they need? A way to lock physics to two dimensions, or possibly even a new physics system entirely, A way to manipulate the camera separate from what the game started with, an orthographic camera, possibly a new lighting system, possibly different optimization techniques, the ability for the modder to replace the player controller and change it’s mechanics entirely, and the tools to use all these to make new levels.

By that point, you’re half way to making a new game engine, and the modder is 90% of the way to just making a standalone game.

I don’t see why voting or having political influence in a country you have no commitment to is a good thing. It seems to me that it just makes it easier to abuse the systems in place without having to live with the consequences.

You’re seriously using the guy who was removed for refusing to follow orders (orders to stand down and NOT escalate) half a century ago, to argue NATO’s current position on the defense of Taiwan?

The question wasn’t about expecting people to be born in the country they wish to live, it was about whether citizenship by jus soli should be an option without conditions.

But why should it be an option if you don’t and/or don’t intend to live there?

Wouldn’t the correct answer in that case just be to make it easier to immigrate and gain citizenship, rather than expecting you to be born there?

I theoretically, I would say I’m generally against it, with the understanding the citizenship is not the same as permission to live/work in the country nor the same as permission to access services.

Citizenship should generally mean that the country is your “home country” rather than place of origin. In that case, citizenship should be given to those who want to commit to participating in and improving the government and culture of the country (if only because thats where they spend most time). Where you were born doesn’t relate to this strongly. What matters is how much time you’ll spend here in the future, such as if your parents are citizens or permanent residents (meaning you’ll likely grow up here) or if you want to move to the country permanently.

Basically, where you’re born shouldn’t matter. What should is your intent on living in the society you’ve gained influence in.

I wouldn’t say the problem is with their length or simplicity. I’m sure I could enjoy a short anthology in one of these universes. The bigger problem is the fact that its embedded into a game, effectively breaking the pacing and flow of both the written text and the game. Ideally, this would at least allow you to use environmental and visual storytelling alongside the text, but this is rarely done well enough to justify all the downsides, so you end up with the worst of both worlds.

The Bethesda (and related) RPGs. The core gameplay loop just feels so shallow in both, meaning most of your time is spent wandering with nothing meaningful to do, or in spammy, often janky combat. The parts that are interesting, the character builds and the lore, aren’t super involved in most of the game. You spend so little time building characters, and most of the lore is in written logs and books.

Try using the title:() operator. For example, title:(warrior OR knight). It can also be combined with others, like title:(sale) OR flair:(offering). I’m sure theres also options for content and metadata, but I don’t know them off the top of my head.

Honestly, at this point Reddit’s search doesn’t even really feel worse than the competition. Its terrible at fuzzy searches, yes, but the fact that it has functioning search operators that it consistantly respects is so useful. Being able to search “(add OR insert OR update) AND (rest OR restful) NOT sql” is so useful.

Of course, a good fuzzy search would also be great, but no one offers that anymore, so…

Its not so much social media that ruined it, as capitalism and centralization.

Forums themselves are a form of social media, and they’re (mostly) great. For Reddit and Lemmy, debatably the best part is the social elements, like the comments sections. The problem isn’t the interaction or the “social” nature of it. Its that these platforms have turned into psudo-monopolies intent on controlling people and/or wringing them for every penny.

Thats not to say toxicity and capitalistic exploitation didn’t exist before either. The term “flame war” is older than a lot of adults today. Unlike today though, platforms were both more decentralized meaning they were easier to manage and users could switch platform, and were less alorithmic meaning that users could more easily avoid large, bad-faith actors. You’ll notice the Fediverse have both these qualities, which is part of why its done so well.

IMO, the best fix to this, would be twofold. A) break up the big monopolies and possibly the psudo-monopolies. Monopolies bad, simple enough. B) Much more difficult, but I believe that what content a site promotes, including algorithmically, should be regulated. Thats not to say sorting algorithms should be banned, but I think we need to regulate how they’re used and implemented. For example, regulations could include things like requiring alternative algorithms be offered to users, banning “black box” algorithms, requiring the algorithns be publicly published, and/or banning algorithms that change based on an individual’s engagement. Ideally, this would give the user more agency over their experience and would reduce the odds of ignorant users being pushed into cult-like rabbit-holes.

If he blames you for his grooming of you, he’s not sorry. He might feel guilty (or might not), but if he’s refusing to accept blame, it doesn’t matter; He doesn’t feel sorry and doesn’t want to change his behavior.

Some people are just evil people who will have no issue with hurting others, and based on what you’re describing, it sounds like he’s part of that group.