551–560 of 654 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think these statements are contradictory.
Half his employees are women—including leadership, programming, and creative roles. If that doesn’t count as “thinking women have a role,” what would? 51%? 90%? You’re relying on blatant social media mischaracterizations over real actions. He actually employs women at parity. You feel like this is unwelcoming. One of those statements is data. The other is fanfic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This study confirms that there is a gender difference but it doesn't explain why. I didn't claim that there were not differences, but that they were not well explained by biology.
Sex is the strongest single predictor of vocational interest orientation we’ve found. Nothing else comes close. If that’s not ‘explained by biology,’ you need to tell me what would be. Otherwise you’re operating on faith.
Knowing what does not explain something, doesn't tell you what does explain it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like "simplicity" is often fetishized to the point of counter-productivity. Show me anything that either Blow or Muratori are doing that couldn't be done in an existing language or framework. People laugh at games with thousand-case switch statements or if/else chains but they shipped and the end user doesn't care about logarithmic complexity. And most of the time it doesn't even matter. What fails with games…
> People laugh at games with thousand-case switch statements or if/else chains but they shipped You have a very incorrect view of both of them if you think this is the kind of thing they are arguing against.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are calling the majority of the US "far right". You're calling people fascist for voting republican. You are the extremist.
With the risk of being a pedant, I think that even at the time that Trump got elected, the validity of saying he was supported by a majority of Americans would have been questionable. Today, I'm positive that it's wrong. But please, answer my question: do you disagree that the discourse of Trump's administration, where immigrants and minorities are "the enemy" and every measure is allowed against them, is not fascism…
Sure, let's examine this. Do you disagree that most organisations are extremely dominated by the left? Something like 90% of people in academia, media, schools, (until recently) corporate leadership, various government institutions etc vote democrat. Do you disagree that in the past 20 years or so, the right has been heavily censored online and in the work place by the left? These are all facts, he is not wrong here. When one side has spent 20 years pushing out the other, taking over institutions, censoring them and calling them fascist/nazi, don't be surprised when they are viewed as the enemy.
I also know exactly what you're thinking, the reasoning you use to justify this:
1. It's not censorship, it's preventing disinformation and "hate". This argument doesn't hold when "disinformation" is political opinions of roughly 50% of the country
2. Academia and institutions lean left because Republicans are simply less intelligent than Democrats. "Truth has a liberal bias". You think kind of arrogance from the left is conductive to a good dialogue and friendly relations?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"There are differences between men and women" isn't a fascist-coded statement because of the statement itself - it's obviously a true statement no matter what you believe. It's fascist- coded . This statement is almost exclusively said by fascists, for reasons that have not much to do with the statement itself. Why is that? IMO it's because fascist slogans always tend to drift away from their actual meaning, towards…
I for one have said that sentence you're discussing a lot, and you'll just have to take my word that I'm far from being a fascist. I even draw conclusions from that sentence, but I'm trying hard to not draw any conclusions about specific members of any given sex. I of course get where you're coming from, but don't you think it is intellectually dishonest to try and police certain "obviously true statements"? Isn't it…
Or if someone says "make America great again", today. I mean who doesn't want America to be great?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>a relatively benign conservative Can it really be considered “relatively benign” when an extremely famous public figure is calling for people who disagree with them to be shot?
You are missing their point. They are saying they start with relatively benign views, and the intense overreaction to those views drives them to support much more extreme views, like what you are describing, that they otherwise might not have. I can't speak for Blow, but that definitely seems to accurately describe the arc Rowling has taken over the last 7-8 years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://x.com/Jonathan_Blow/status/1939982295936782396 > Trump was my preferred President in the last election cycle but nothing will make me hate him faster than this banana republic shit. (replying to a post complaining on the direction of government contracts/subsidies under the Trump administration)
That particular tweet only says that he preferred Trump to Kamala which IMO is a reasonable opinion. It does not say that he likes Trump. Given the choice between a douche and a turd sandwich you pick one. Maybe post some other tweet?
Maybe for you. For people like me, voting for Trump is completely unacceptable, in particular after the experiences with the first Trump administration.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think my point was distinct from naming this idea (Death of the Author). It wasn't about guilt it was about consequences and those are distinct things. Also, AIUI Death of the Author is not about whether their beliefs mattered to understand the intended meaning, but instead whether "intended meaning" is even a thing anyway. No need to understand it if it doesn't exist. I prefer in other contexts not to try to guess…
> " you aren't innocent of murder just because you didn't intend that the victim would die. " You might be; from the UK's Crown Prosecution Service guidance website[1]: "Involuntary Manslaughter. Where an unlawful killing is done without an intention to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm, the suspect is to be charged with manslaughter not murder.". From Wikipedia[2]: "In English law, manslaughter is a less serious…
The GBH (Grievous Bodily Harm) is crucial there. The intent only needs to be GBH which is way easier to prove, for example weapon use. The prosecutors don't need to prove intent to kill, the death is evidence that you killed somebody (except in the rare cases they can't produce a corpse, for which they have to do more work)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Some people don't have the luxury of preaching for whatever ideals they have without a need to release anything in 10 years Wait, how did they gain this "luxury"? Are they trust fund babies or something? Or did they earn their big stash of money by producing "garbage" and now retroactively are preaching ideals that they themselves didn't follow or what? This line of "criticism" doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Af…
Just to be clear, your comments are implying everyone who doesn't write everything from scratch is shipping garbage. Ignoring how misinformed that opinion is, I would say The Witness is a very compromised game. Maybe if less focus went into the technical aspect, it could've been better.
> Ignoring how misinformed that opinion is
You are making up some random opinion (that I supposedly have, but that are nowhere to be found in what I wrote).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a very reductive take. Even if you don't like Jon, calling Jai an exercise in arrogance is simply untrue. When he started making Jai in ~2014, there were very few viable alternatives to C/C++ in the systems programming space that offered the kind of expressive power becoming of a langauge built this century. Rust is great, but it prioritising correctness is not always the right choice, especially not for game…
How has Jai introduce ideas if it’s not even released? How can we claim to know what it did “right” when only a few projects have been built in it?
These are orthogonal concepts. Jai can or cannot introduce ideas, and Jai can or cannot be released. As of now, it is in fact so that Jai has introduced ideas, and has been released to a closed group of beta testers.
> How can we claim to know what it did “right” when only a few projects have been built in it?
To judge whether Jai did something right, in my opinion, it suffices to read the documentation and experience someone else programming second-hand and take advantage of its offerings, namely making programming less tedious, more enjoyable, more safe. It appears to me that you set the bar of usefulness or success too high for no good reason.