Respectfully, I can easily see a shared workplace at least encouraging screwing over customers. To me its an even more intense instance of the shareholder problem. Shareholders are obsessed with the money they’re getting back with no real work but the risk inherent in the bet they made. The workers are working, for a livelihood, and of course will want to improve their quality of life. They’re even more motivated to do so. And some of the best ways to do that, in the “make monkey brain happy” obvious short-term are the same policies the shareholders are already pushing. Will there be some pushback? Definitely, but you only have to sell a bunch of people on short-term easy money. And the lottery isn’t popular because people are smart about this stuff.

Ah, the good ol’ “I’m not, but actually am, but not enough that I should get a raise, but I really would like one and less work hours, but I really need to stay longer because I’m so slow at everything I do and am terrible at focusing so I should really be working harder to give you your money’s worth, but you’re probably not paying me as much as you should be for that work in hindsight” theoretical with yourself and your imagined boss.

Unless there’s a bug. Then it is my code and I have to fix it. Immediately. No, I don’t want to discuss my thought process for “why I made that decision” I want to fix it. Why are we having a chat about milk pouring technique while it is dripping off the fucking table. Prod is burning and you want to fiddle! (Meanwhile this is a minor bug that nobody has ever actually complained about but just the knowledge that it was my fault…)

I wouldn’t want Fallout 4’s incongruous fps shooting or the terrible “perk” system tainting FNV, tbh. Frankly I’d be pleased with the arrangement that Bethesda never touches FNV or anything related to it again, but blue sky thinking’s just that.

I mean you can be unconscious for more than head trauma. My thought was in line with heart issues and if the differences in sex played any part there, due to the differences in the appearance of problems with them between men and women, but maybe that’s not really relevant until they hit the hospital.(Since EMTs are stabilizing focused) Just having it on the card - avoiding the time needed to check especially if they’ve had surgery - seems helpful, if that was relevant. If its not of course it doesn’t need to be there but if there’s EMTs around chime in because obviously I don’t know.

I’d also add the consideration that a photo ID also serves the purpose of some base level medical information (or else our listing organ donor status on them is super weird) so having sex on there if you’re unconscious and the EMTs pick you up and need to check makes some sense. No reason both couldn’t work.

I’m a little shocked. Normally its Hines caught with his foot that deep in his own mouth.

I mean, that’s probably why he would make the push. The bait’s in the mouth (people have the game), then comes the pull of the hook (they have to upgrade to try and handle its poor optimization, fulfilling the benefit of AMD backing them). And Beth doesn’t lose anything if its too frustrating and people stop playing over it because they already have the money.

EDIT: Admittedly I keep forgetting that game-pass is a thing, but maybe even that doesn’t really matter to Microsoft if it got people to get on gamepass or something? That makes my earlier point a bit shakier.

It continues to worsen the longer you try and consider the motivation for the 11 year old. Of which I can think of at least 2, if not more, but I’ll spare us all.

My love for the first two games is sortof why I’m avoiding it. I mean, I even didn’t like the concept of the proposed Black Hound game being called Baldur’s Gate 3. So I’m going to come in with opinions and just ruin it for myself even if its as good as some say, and that’s assuming WoTC having decades to ruin every scrap of coherency in the setting’s lore hasn’t impacted things negatively. (One thing I really appreciate about Larian’s handling of BG3 is that they gave me enough info to come to that conclusion first.)

I mean, that’s arguably incredibly conservative. “The old ways” and all that.

Thank you, I think that helps parse out where I was unclear. There’s specifics in the language at play. It makes me wonder how often bad actors prevention of even small distinctions being discussed has made it muddier and harder for everyone else.

I guess my question’s always been that since gender is (to my incomplete understanding) a social construct and can change, and transgender people seek to change to a gender that feels more appropriate, how did you (a) know what felt right, (b) that what felt right wasn’t completely appropriate for your gender and the active definition of gender needed to change, and © where does chemical and surgical transition factor in for a gender based thing when attempting to find for comfortable self? Because that seems like a sex (in the clinical terminology) thing as much as a gender one (which of course there’s probably a connection, I guess I’m just not clear where the line really breaks.)

To be clear, I think my questions are entirely too “rationalizing a deep emotional and person thing” so I don’t really expect an answer, I’ve just never been invited to address the question to anyone before.

Sowing and reaping hope keeps you young.

I mean, your argument is “we can’t ever be perfect so we should never even aspire to be good”, which is sortof putting the cart before the horse. That we can even recognize the distinction of not being special already places in a position where we can try and do a little better. What is better, how much, or how? What even is good or morality? All of those questions are at necessity to even define good, let alone become it. Before even glancing at perfect. Sure it might be an eternal inane treadmill, but just as fish have gills to breathe, we by chance of fate have the organs necessary to think. And that’s just as much in our nature. The fish doesn’t consider how long it has to swim, it just does it towards a target it can see/sense. By the same mechanism that means we aren’t special, why shouldn’t, why wouldn’t, we do the same thing? Just because what we can see/sense may be artificial, imagined, or drempt?

I hadn’t heard the Wolf’s wife part, but I’d always heard said that it was a “Fox’s wedding”. Which is pretty similar. I’ve heard sunshower and that “The Devil’s beating his wife” but the fox one was more fun so it stuck with me.

There also seems to be a bit of weirdness even surrounding what “conservative” means. It used to mean an intent toward preservation of certain existing institutions/trends and preexisting stability, with a distrust for new institutions that may upset existing social calm. Which often is at odds with beneficial change but isn’t inherently against it, favoring instead that it be slow and precise. When I think of myself as conservative that’s the concept I have.

The problem is that “conservative” now can also include a group of people for which preserving an existing state (as in condition/mode of being ) is no longer acceptable, the demand either a reverse or entirely new directions.

As an example that’s a little less hot button - vouchers for private schools. That’s an active novelty and a change from an existing institution, rife with potential long-term impacts on both culture and stability that could be negative, and yet some positions push for it (often without addressing those problems). That’s not a conservative position. That’s a progressive one (maybe not in the direction someone on the left would want obviously).

Conservative got irrevocably linked with Right due to some preexisting social constructs and the urge to preserve them, but realistically it should hold just as well that a conservative would seek to preserve left-wing establishments as much as right-wing ones, or at least advise any changes to them be slow and incremental to avoid pop-up problems. Admittedly things like technology complicate that due to the speed with which it changes and demands response.