True. I guess the distinction, though semantically redundant, seems to be contextually necessary nowadays…

I have to disagree with the idea that the world has always been a terrible place. Actually building upon what you’ve said subsequently, the world itself isn’t terrible, it’s just a rock with some moss and critters on it, the systems we’ve created for ourselves are terrible. That’s exactly the nuance to which I was referring in my initial comment, Antinatalism isn’t universally applicable to all existing and potential existential contexts.

The world as it is now, yes. But this is far from the only option, thus the world is not an inevitable soup of suffering. So, no.

This is an overgeneralisation which completely misses the nuance. Antinatalism does not postulate that it’s morally wrong to procreate, only that it is morally wrong to bring another human consciousness into a soup of suffering, which… yeah, kinda’! I mean, is the world not presently a soup of suffering, with extra helpings on the way?

Personally, I doubt most people who subscribe to Antinatalism would do so if society weren’t literally a hell hole right now.

GIMME SOME SKIIIN!

Ugh… ugh-ugh. Uah! AAAH! AAAH, AAAH! URGH! *hits table with keyboard triumphantly

Getting an orange in there can’t be easy:-?

ITS JOB IS TO SOOTHE ME!!

Yes, 100% my point! Who needs to know stuff when the Government and rich people are already looking out for our best interests? Poverty is a non-issue, everyone owns 2.5 houses per capita, this is a utopia! Books just ruin everything!

/s.

This’ll only happen once education is restructured almost entirely. Critical Thinking has not been on the menu for a long time (if ever), and it’s not in the interest of the Powers That Be to increase critical thinking in individuals - people who really think tend to ask relevant, but uncomfortable questions.

Conspiracy theories are a side-effect of biased education.

Weird hill to die on, this, where you’d rather defend words than people.

Well, judging by the myriad dictionaries out there, this word has been gendered well before this subject’s been broached.

I am unaware of that video, blissfully so according to your observation!:))

Oh, I just use “sibling” or “sib” for that level of familiarity, easier that way:))

“Mate”'s nice, mate, but… I dunno, feels like it doesn’t fully capture that… pizzazz that “dude” and “dudette” have.

Multiple sources, including Merriam-Webster, Cambridge and Oxford state that “dude” is a masculine noun, synonymous with man, guy, etc., so I disagree with this. As an exclamation, sure, as it’s not referring to anyone in particular, so it can be taken as an impersonal interjection.

100% agree with this, shouldn’t even need to be said!

However, I would posit that we need an inclusive equivalent for everyone, as the ethos of “dude/dudette” is, in my opinion, well worth keeping - some people simply are THAT cool!

I’m nowhere near smart enough to come up with new words (barely smart enough to use the ones we have…), but I’d totally want to have that sentiment preserved.

Terrifying concept!

While I understand your point, I still tend to disagree. I’ve had ten years of experience working in QA, both on games and on misc. software, and the amount of bugs with which games are shipped as of late shifts the discussion from severity and prioritisation to volume - it isn’t a question of what should have been fixed first when basically everything is busted. As such, it becomes a business problem entirely.

Another aspect which underlines this is the fact that, taking Baldur’s Gate 3 as an example since we started with it, it’s usually the latter half which is most affected. These trends taken together indicate a front-loading with QA in order to sell, then (hopefully) stealth-fixing the latter half before people get to it. Which doesn’t work, because you get maniacs like me who spend 200 hours in-game during the first two weeks after launch. Same goes for Rogue Trader, for example. Game’s all there, technically, first two Chapters are pretty much sterling, but how is one supposed to appreciate the creativity behind it considering half of the game may be inaccessible due to bugs (talking about soft-locking quests, busted progression triggers, busted scripting, and even more mechanical aspects which require trial-and-error with repeated reloads in the hopes that you stumble upon the right combination of actions which bypasses the bug).

In my perspective, creativity, while it is to be appreciated, becomes sort of moot in this case - it’d be like ignoring the fact that half of the painting is drafted on napkins with a big TODO stapled to it, or being sold a partly assembled phone with the promise that they’ll send you the rest of the components later on down the line.

No, the industry needs to stop selling half-baked goods because they know they can get away with it. Having to patch a game for months, non-stop, after launch day, after it’s been, as you’ve said, a century in Early Access, is not a misunderstanding of bug severity, it’s focusing on profit more than on the product. Not taking away the games’ ‘goodness,’ but just as an underbaked cake, you still have to swallow a lotta raw eggs with that goodness.