71–80 of 86 posts
gaming studios are full of people who are squarely in the target market for the product they're developing. this has downsides but in many ways is a huge edge, so in a sense ageism seems more justifiable in games than elsewhere as a close proxy for audience understanding
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A good way to test if you're ageist is to replace "older" with "black" or "female" and re-read what you wrote (assuming you're not racist or sexist).
I'm an older developer (60), and no longer have an amazing memory like when I was young. It absolutely slows me down and makes it harder to learn new things. That said, I am the top performer on my current team of younger devs, in part because of my depth of experience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if my company consents to selling widgets to a new customer, but doesnt consent to the exclusivity clause they have with the another supplier? I dont see how the vote of the third party is relevant here. You see how ridiculous that sounds when you don't treat unions as some special form of supplier that doesn't get to negotiate in groups, right?
It sounds ridiculous because your example isn't a imposition of a third party but rather a contract the counterparty signed to and thus asking something the counterparty doesn't consent to doing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We don't let people sell themselves into slavery even though that would "take away the bodily autonomy of the employee to enter mutually consensual arrangement and instead smash them with third party imposition...", no "union baron" needed. Your race to the bottom can affect others, regardless of wether or not you recognize negative externalities exist.
I don't see a compelling reason why I shouldn't be able to act as a slave for as long as both parties consent to it. If you want to create lovich 1840s era cotton picking slave service with the full historical recreation it's not clear why that's anyone else's business but you and the masta'.
There are some behaviors that are banned because paradoxically by allowing you the liberty to do that, everyone’s liberty is negatively affected.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see a compelling reason why I shouldn't be able to act as a slave for as long as both parties consent to it. If you want to create lovich 1840s era cotton picking slave service with the full historical recreation it's not clear why that's anyone else's business but you and the masta'.
Man you literally just had the whole but about race to the bottom and negative externalities woosh right over your head. There are some behaviors that are banned because paradoxically by allowing you the liberty to do that, everyone’s liberty is negatively affected.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds ridiculous because your example isn't a imposition of a third party but rather a contract the counterparty signed to and thus asking something the counterparty doesn't consent to doing.
And can a company and union not sign a contract for only exclusively using union labor, sort of like some exclusivity deal?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The measure should be weighted by hours played or dollars spent or something.
Why? To satisfy people’s preconceived notion of what a gamer is? You can definitely break the industry down deeper by looking at different cohorts which is interesting but doesn’t alter the top line numbers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? To satisfy people’s preconceived notion of what a gamer is? You can definitely break the industry down deeper by looking at different cohorts which is interesting but doesn’t alter the top line numbers.
I have never heard the use of "gamer" to mean "at least plays games sometimes every now and then".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have never heard the use of "gamer" to mean "at least plays games sometimes every now and then".
You can understand though that from a broad industry perspective everyone that plays games is a potential customer and thus interesting as a gamer?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And can a company and union not sign a contract for only exclusively using union labor, sort of like some exclusivity deal?
Sure, then it's no longer third party dissent but counterparty dissent in hiring non union. Obviously competitors will emerge to varying success to employ these excluded persons.
I’d also like to point out that you needed to have this framed in the context of a union negotiating the same way as a company before you were ok with it. Why the visceral reaction to unions but none for companies?