I would never compare, being a sex worker is obviously incredibly more honorable
But...saying that something is more honorable than something else is comparing them?
EDIT: to be clear, her point is absolutely valid. This isn't (to misquote a replier) "But I must find way for sex lady be dumb". Her actual point is spot-on. This particular linguistic evolution just feels weird to me - feels like the new "literally".
My friend, that's positively milquetoast in comparison to Stewart Lee.
"_Every person who has ever done in the past, has done it with and it had _" does not imply "_The only reason anyone could possibly ever do is with to achieve _". That's a valid reason to be cautious, but not a reason to make blanket statements about an entire category of thing.
EDIT: for Day1 DLC in particular, a totally valid and non-exploitative reason for it is "we had a release date that we absolutely had to hit (because of marketing, contracts, etc.), which necessitated calling a production halt well in-advance of the release date for QA and testing - but instead of moving on to the next project, developers worked on more stuff for the same game. If that was too complex or didn't work out, we could drop it and no-one would complain; but if we'd kept developing it in the base game, and resulted in a slipped release date, there would be hell to pay"
When a company actually exists that utilizes your view of DLC, then it might be a valid criticism of the phrasing
No, that's precisely the point I'm trying to make - "every example of X that has existed so far is Y" does not imply "by definition, X is provably and definitively always Y".
You can claim that all DLC that has ever existed is predatory and exploitative (I suspect there are counter-examples; but, fine, whatever, not relevant to my point). You can say that, because of past performance, you are disinclined to trust future examples of DLC or give them the benefit of the doubt. That is all reasonable. But you can't conclude "because all DLC so far has been bad, the concept of DLC as a whole is bad and can never be used well".
As a super-simple example - here are some prime numbers: 5, 11, 37. Are all prime numbers odd? I can give you a bunch more examples if you want!
In my first couple months, I broke Amazon so that no-one in Europe could buy video for a few hours. On a Friday, right before going on a week's vacation.
The way that the ensuing investigation and response was carried out - 100% blame-free, and focused on "how did these tools let him down? How can we make sure no-one ever makes that same mistake again?" - gave me a career-long interest in Software Resiliency and Incident Management.
Thank you for reminding me of my favourite Stewart Lee bit.
Tell me more about these explicit sports!
Introduce them to the wonderful world of No Hello!
I hear you, but given that my "lunchtime" could be anywhere between 11:00 and 15:00 (and that's not even allowing for timezones), that's pretty impractical.
It's great to have someone else who gets it!
If they have already developed the content, then it should be released with the rest of the game, for the price of the game.
Why? Genuine question. What does it matter to you as a consumer when the content was developed?
If the point you're actually trying to make is "if the game is developed as a whole, but then content is carved out such that the base game then feels incomplete without it", then this is already covered: a game which feels incomplete is inherently flawed, and so doesn't justify the price of a full game. That's my original point - most people are actually just pissed at inaccurate or unfair pricing, and DLC can enable that (but doesn't have to), so they misdirect their anger to all DLC instead.
There is nothing inherently wrong with DLC, and I'm tired of pretending that there is. If you think the base game is over-priced, then by all means complain about that - but if both the base game and the DLC are worth the price they're asking for it, then there is no harm done (and some advantage) in having modular buying options.
packaging woes
My own hot take is that I hear this criticism of Python a lot, but have never had anyone actually back it up when I ask for more details. And I will be very surprised to hear that it's a worse situation than Java/TypeScript's.
Sure, because something so egregious would definitely show up in a Google search for "Zach Weinersmith sweatshop", right?
Unless...you're exaggerating on the Internet to stir up outrage?
Treat words as coordinates in the space of all possible concepts, and add a few together. I think that fulfils your constraint of not "taking inspiration from...words from a recent ongoing conversation" since you can, if you wish, pick the words in your own head.
Or - drugs. Drugs are good too. I don't know why you're applying these artificial constraints to this problem as if there is some notion of "purity" or "cheating" to the practice of idea-generation. Is an idea any less worthy, insightful, or useful because you came up with it while using a chemical tool to do so?
I think you're being a little too quick to judge (no pun intended) by dismissing these scenarips as assigning blame. The point of these problems isn't to decide whose "fault" it is or who is the "bad guy" - they are thought experiments to explore what is "right" to do, according to various schools of thought.
In the original trolley problem, or in this one, it's totally fair for you to say "whatever happens, it's not the chooser's fault - they were forced into this position, and so they cannot be to blame". That's fine - but even if they are absolved of blame the question still remains of what is right for them to do. If your answer is "whatever they want (because engaging with terorrists' demands is always wrong)", or "whatever is the opposite of what they're being pressured to do", or "whatever is the least action", or "whatever rminimizess suffering", or "whatever minimizes undeserved suffering", those are all still answers to the question, without any implications of blame or guilt to the chooser!
I'm truly impressed at how incomprehensible this post is to me. "Treat", "struggle", "hog" and "chud" all presumably mean something particular to you.
No insult intended - in-group slang is fun sometimes. It's just kinda cool to be presented with it - reminds me of the Weird Old Internet.
don't say [those words] in my presence
Will I regret asking why?
He's a friend of mine! This is the first time I've seen organic mention of the book - very cool!