The Luddite’s?

Absolutely agree with this but there is no denying the innovation levels at spacex are higher

Undeniably, they’ve been doing amazing work (at least from my rocketry technology peasant point of view).

They landed people on the moon and then did fuck all for decades.

Indeed, all i was saying is that they were capable given budget and circumstances.

That budget and direction comes from the government.

When Musk started SpaceX he was not well known yet, SpaceX came before Tesla.

I will admit, i thought spacex was just another company he bought his way in to, like tesla, seems i was mistaken about that.

He was able to get into the businesses he has because he was rich yes, but you can find many accounts of engineers that worked under him speak of how good he was at finding ways to cut unnecessary costs.

And you can equally find many accounts of having to distract him from the day to day operations because he’s unreliable , unpredictable and chaotic (none of those meant in a good way).

He’s also known for buying good press and using litigation to silence people.

He’s not a technical genius that’s for sure. But he has been a good CEO for SpaceX.

I doubt this, but that could just be bias, i don’t have any actual evidence of the long term impact of him as CEO.

Recently though, he’s provably been significantly more of a liability than a benefit, even if just from a PR and public sentiment point of view.

But I refuse to simply wave away his achievements simply because I don’t like him. I can not like someone and still acknowledge they have done something good.

Indeed, i push back on the myth that he’s some self made tony stark genius, but it isn’t like he’s not achieved anything.

I would personally attribute most of that to neptoism, wealth, luck and opportunity, but that doesn’t remove the achievement itself.

You mean the NASA who landed people on the moon?

So let’s assume you aren’t a moon landing denier and use that as a baseline, NASA is clearly capable of things given the right circumstances and budget.

SpaceX benefited from his reputation and money, because they sure as shit didn’t benefit from his technical acumen.

Business wise he is successful because he’s rich and influential and that works to mitigate how shitty he is at actually running an organisation, that doesn’t mean he has skills as a business person that means he has money and influence, in his case originally from the mine, then from buying and bullying his was in to businesses that were technologically sound and boosting them with his money.

You could make an argument he’s a relatively good investor, but he’s an actively bad CEO.

They could stir up interest by actually finishing the first game.

There are supposed to be 5 story episodes, i think the last released episode (4) was three years ago.

Since then they’ve released a full DLC and are close to releasing the second game from what i can tell.

I’m not bitter or anything, i haven’t got past the second episode yet, so this makes zero difference to me personally.

In fairness is was full jank on release, the initial patches got it to “bethesda jank” where it was fun with the bugs (provided you could actually play it) but still bug ridden.

It got better over time, until just before the “big patch” came in that fully changed how it all worked skills and mechanics wise (gameplay was mostly the same).

Honestly i prefer, pre-“big patch” but the fully patched game is considerably smoother and more coherent.

So, aside from the years of post release development, completely missing features that are never actually coming (looking at you full transit system), it’s actually pretty good.

An absolutely dogshit way of releasing a game, but if you waited for a few years and bought it on discount , it’s actually a really fun game (provided you like that sort of thing).

TBC I’m not justifying anything about this process , it was a major fuckup and many other dev houses would have gone under from the weight of how badly they fucked it up, but they had that witcher money, so.

Is that screenshot purposely taken to make him look like henry cavill ?

or am i imagining it ?

the majority of the population doesn’t identify this as being nazism.

That’s a big claim for no citation.

Taxonomy.

• A cat is [animal]
• A dog is an [animal]

The nazi’s did such a good job of distinguishing themselves they created their own (colloquial) taxonomic branch.

So [nazi] could be considered a parent grouping of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party and also potentially a parent grouping for the republicans.

I think they key here is separating the nazi party from the [nazi] category

As you pointed out all [nazi]'s are [fascist]'s but not all [fascist]'s are [nazi]'s

• National Socialist German Workers’ Party were [nazi]'s
• The American Republican Party are subjectively showing enough similarities (both in type and progression) that they get the provisional label of [nazi] as it’s the closest existing definition.

Might turn out that they don’t quite fall in the same branch, might turn out they do. Until then [nazi] is an easy shortcut for describing the types of behaviour displayed.

Even if they were just a direct descendent ( taxonomically ) rather than a sibling of the original nazi party there would still be an argument to claim they were nazi’s

Like :

• animal -> mammal -> cat
• nazi -> nazi party -> republican

Come back in a few years and you’ll probably get your definitive answer either way.

You don’t have to agree with any of that of course, but it does demonstrate how someone might have an opposing opinion to your own.

Well, at least they aren’t pretending to accept longer passwords but actually truncating it, like they used to in hotmail and live.

They were silently truncating the passwords to something like the first 16 characters, the rest was ignored.

a sequel is in the works : https://www.remedygames.com/games/control-2

Not sure how versed/willing you are to selfhost but I’ve heard good things about tube archivist.

There are also a bunch of ui’s for yt-dlp, though i can’t vouch for quality.

It’s somewhat of a catch, that’s generally how monopolistic moats work but you really shouldn’t be relying on google as a backup service for obscure videos you wish to keep.

I’ve no idea of the amount of lectures, guides, documentaries and other non-entertainment media that is available exclusively on youtube, but again it isn’t an archiving service.

They can, will and have deleted whole channels for various reasons, most of which were bullshit, if you find something you absolutely have to keep, download it.

That being said, the process of downloading, archiving and curating content on anything more than a trivial scale can be much more involved than it seems, especially if you want backups/redundancy.

I’ve never been a big youtube user so my opinion on this is coloured by the fact that i don’t have that much invested in the platform.

Literally any other form of entertainment.

Though the statement was to stop using it, not replace it.

2/2

I agree completely, which is why I say it’s not the right word. I am totally against people saying homosexuality is a mental illness because it implies it’s something that needs to be corrected. I do see it as something that deviates from the norm, but in a way as harmless and inconsequential as left-handedness.

And i don’t disagree (aside from the discussion on “norm” as stated above).

I thought I had done a good enough job of establishing upfront what I meant when I said that I was pro LGBT and was coming at this from a point of trying to understand, but I the backlash clearly shows that was not enough.

That’s not necessarily true, people are going to disagree and misunderstand especially on a subject such as this, all you can do is engage in good faith and work with the results of that.

If you want to refine your explanations, that’s fine also, but you aren’t going to get 100% success rates, especially on the internet.

I find it frustrating having to tiptoe around topics like this and always try to explain myself because people are so quick to look for the bad, but I suppose that is the current world we live in.

All we can do is our best, if that’s not enough for some people, so be it.

This kind of communication is a skill, it’ll get more refined over time.

It’s a sad fact that there are a lot of people trying to opress anyone who is different, and I can’t exect strangers on the internet to know me or what I believe in.

True, so manage your expectations accordingly.

If you go in to it with an understanding of the potential outcomes you won’t be blindsided.

I’ve done a lot of explaining myself, but I’m still not conviced my original assumption is incorrect. I still think that homosexuality has a biological/mental aspect because gay people say that they were born that way, it’s not a choice, it’s who they are. I didn’t choose to be straight so that makes perfect sense to me. I also know that the people who feel that way are in a minority, therefore something is happening mentally, biologically, I don’t know, to a small subset of people making them an abnormality.

The conversation about a potential biological/genetic component to homosexuality is incredibly charged for various reasons but mainly because of the consequences of either outcome.

If it turns out there is a genetic component then think of all the things the fundamentalist nutjobs would want to do with that information.

And given that fundamentalist nutjobs aren’t know for their clear headed and rational thinking they wouldn’t understand (or would wilfully ignore) that you probably can’t just point to a “gay gene” as a means of identification so not only would they being doing stupid shit, they’d be doing stupid shit that doesn’t make any sense.

What I HAVE learned is I need to be more cautious of using the word abnormal which goes full circle to my question on if this is an issue of language. Most people really don’t like words that black and white say they’re different, because while it may be true, it can be used by people who do not feel like deviations from the norm are acceptable, and they will attack them for being the “other”. This is just a very polarizing topic and can cause people who say they’re on the same side to get at each other assuming the worst, which is unfortunate.

I think it’s more complicated than just language, though language is a major component on the internet.

There are sometimes ways to present the same information in a similar way that makes use of linguistic and societal context to convey the meaning of what you were saying while downplaying some of the the negative aspects of how it could be received.

I suspect an issue you might be having is that at a glance they’d probably both look the same to you, so with a choice between four words and two sentences the more concise seems like the better option.

Though i might be projecting.

I don’t actually think that’s the issue here however, i agree it’s just a charged subject and people are people.

1/2

Thank you for taking the time to write such a well thought out comment. I’ll try to reply to it but honestly the amount of downvotes I’m getting for trying to understand something is a bit discouraging so I don’t think I’ll be keeping the conversation going much longer.

No problem, i recognise the style of question because it’s how i would approach it.

As you correctly noted a few times, this is an emotionally charged topic so a higher than normal amount of people will interpret the question through the lens of their emotions

Even with the best intentions and most detailed prefaces you should still manage your expectations on the types and tone of replies you will get to such a question.

I think of it this way :

• if if think they are misunderstanding the question i am posing then they are not actually attacking me or my position, they are attacking what they think is me or my position.
  • Then it’s just a case of determining if I’m willing to put forth the effort required to try and bridge that gap, which varies.
• If i think they are approaching in bad faith, that saves me some effort because i can just ignore/block them.
• If i think there is a genuine engagement, that’s good, even if they disagree I’m getting the discussion i was looking for.

In more concise wording, people are going to people, don’t let them foist their issues on to you, engage when you want, disengage when you don’t.

At least that’s what works for me.

I’m making a pretty general statement so I don’t have numbers to back anything up, but I would be very surprised if we didn’t have basic statistics on how many people identify as gay, or are diagnosed with ADD, etc. So I think we do understand norms, but you’re right this always changes with increased research and study.

I do see what you mean, what i was saying is that the understanding of “norm” isn’t very clearly defined in these sorts of cases.

Eye colour is relatively easy (within defined colour brackets) you can look at the single item of data and categorise so it’s easy to partition the population based on something like that.

With things like mental health diagnoses we can’t even reliably agree upon what brackets to apply so it’s significantly more difficult to apply the idea of a norm.

in turn that makes the idea of abnormal equally difficult to define.

I did this on purpose. I’m not saying any of these are similar at all, just that they’re attributes that might make us unique and as far as I’m aware (since I’m not religious) these are functions of brain chemestry. Somone who has a very creative mind can be encouraged through their upbringing and surroundings to use it for music, arts, etc but I do think think there is something physical in the brain there. I’m not a neuroscientist so I don’t know how much is attributed to genetics, hormones, etc.

I agree with them all being functions of brain chemistry.

Though i don’t rule out something we’d consider supernatural or spiritual because honestly i don’t really know much of anything to be definitively ruling out something like that.

I don’t subscribe to them in my daily life, but who knows.

The answer to most of this is “it’s complicated” and we’re basically using best guesses at this point, these guesses are based on scientific principles, but all that science really is is a semi-concrete method of defining and refining what our best guesses currently are.

What i was trying to convey is that while all of these things could be considered “attributes”, in reality it’s much more nuanced than it seems, musical talent has many forms, as does ADD and sexual orientation/preference.

Honestly i’d consider most brain stuff to just be unique expressions of an individual, rather than a set of labels, but that isn’t very helpful in most circumstances.

Ah i think i see.

That quote is not from my post, i think you meant to reply to the OP.

I don’t think understand what you are asking, would you mind adding a bit more detail please ?

Question, and this may not be the perfect place for this, but is it the phrasing that LGBTQ is a mental “illness” that’s the problem here, or that it’s a mental attribute at all?

There are many possible reasons why people might be upset at this change.

For example, loosening the moderation and restrictions like this it empowers people who are coming at this specifically with malice in mind to act with impunity.

I’m an LGBT supporter, so I’m not coming at this from a place of malice, I suppose it’s curiosity and ignorance. Don’t we basically understand that the way we function as humans is all a part of our brain chemistry, and that certain deviations from the norm cause things like ADD, homosexuality, musical creativity, etc etc?

That’s a complicated question, with a lot of what i would consider reductive phrasing.

“Deviations from the norm” would imply that there is a specific baseline “norm” to point at, when it’s much more of a vague idea of what is average, which changes over time and with increased understanding/study.

Grouping ADD, homosexuality and musical creativity together is also a bit of a stretch IMO.

ADD can be classified as a divergence from the very rough average baseline of brain function, but even then it encompasses a wide range of differences and these differences vary from person to person.

This is evidenced by how they diagnose these conditions ( ADD, ASD, Anxiety disorder etc), which is through questionnaires and assessments by professionals.

It’s not a

“You tick the 10 ADD boxes so you get the label” kind of thing,

it’s more

“You exhibit enough of these wide range symptoms with a large enough difference from the vague baseline that we would put you roughly in to this category”

Opinions on homosexuality being nature vs nurture vs “some other thing” is a whole other giant kettle of fish.

And musical “talent” can have many sources, depending on your definition.

The word illness seems way too strong, as we as a society have decided we don’t have anything against that personal trait/lifestyle/whatever

It’s commonly used to establish a baseline platform for justifying and normalising bigotry and hatred towards something.

Look up what they used to call “Hysteria” and what that enabled them to justify as “medical procedures”.

I’m sure there are people who legitimately think it’s some sort of illness but i’d put my money on the majority just being arseholes using it as an excuse.

but as far as natural occurrences goes homosexuality must be considered a mental abnormality, no?

Depends on if you consider homosexual behaviour as something unnatural.

My personal opinion is that anything we do is “natural” as we are a part of nature, not outside of it.

Putting that argument aside however, there are instances of homosexual behaviour in animals other than humans.

It also heavily depends on your definition of “abnormal”, for instance, would you consider left-handedness a mental abnormality ?

Again I don’t want to get caught up in feelings here, because I think people will hear that and take offence to it since no one wants to be “abnormal”

They might take offence because words have contextual meaning associated with them.

The strict definition of the word abnormal isn’t particularly useful here , it’s only when it’s given context that it makes sense.

My view is that the word “abnormal” when used in the context of homosexuality has been continually used as a weapon, a way to normalise and justify bigotry.

If you establish up front what it is exactly you mean (for me this would need to include what you mean by “normal”), then you might get more positive responses.

but that is the concensus is it not?

As far as i understand it, no, it is not.

“Essential” implies more than just a small part, but if you want to claim otherwise you are free to do so.

Do you also say “no, ALL lives matter?”

Because project management is comparable to civil rights? That’s some weak sauce whattaboutism.