Nothing is ever truly original, everything you create is a remix of things you encountered after they are processed by your subconscious. And that’s ok. Even if your song will end up to be very similar to another one it will be your own spin on the musical “idea”. Go for it
The only right answer
Did anybody in the comments read the article? Rhetorical question
The article defines “live service game” as a game receiving regular updates for years, a definition which includes worldwide favourites like the Witcher 3 or BG3.
Exactly, my point was that word genders are meaningless
I don’t know if you’re being serious but what does that have to do with anything? In Italian the word for “beard” is feminine, I can assure you nobody links it with femininity in any way. Just because the neutral gender doesn’t exist that doesn’t mean everything is actually gendered.
This post’s image man
It’s not that hard™
They are animals then not pets. The difference between an animal and a pet is that a pet has an owner that cares for them, it’s pretty much the definition
Sure but you’d also rather benefit a nobody in exchange for money than you would in exchange of “trust me bro”. As you say, you’re working to benefit somebody else in both ways, but only one gives you immediate positive feedback. In enormous societies such as modern countries are you need a strong stimulus to work, money provides that but benefits don’t - you would see much more people happy to pay taxes otherwise.
Not that I wouldn’t love living in a Star Trek federation like communist society, but we ain’t there yet
Pets do what now?
Pets live lives of luxury that they would never be able to afford were it not for somebody else’s toil. They don’t go hungry and they want for nothing, even medical expenses are provided by the people who serve them. Humans do all the work and pets reap all the benefits. They make us feel guilty if we stop providing for them and this is just how things are and have always been.
Pets are the ultimate capitalists.
That was exactly my point. Blocking instances because “that way my content can’t be seen there” doesn’t make sense, because it’s trivial to bypass it. Yes, even a screenshot will do the job if nothing else, so why talk about protocols in the first place?
Somebody (maybe you maybe not, can’t check while replying) said that blocking instances was useful so that “my content doesn’t get seen / shared / pushed / etc to people and instances I don’t want”. That doesn’t make sense because of the line above. If you need clarification on who are those people and what are those instances ask them, not me.
I hope I’m somehow conveying my message. If there is a subtlety in the subject that I didn’t catch feel free to help me understand.
And what’s stopping these people and these instances from spreading that content using just the publicly available link? Instead of just clicking “share” they’ll have to open an anonymous browser window and copy paste the link from there, the horror!
Isn’t “protecting content” on a public platform kinda moot?
All words that start with “gif” have a hard g because there is only one: gift. If “gift” had a soft g, then all the words that start with “gif-“ would have a soft g. If it only has one case of application it’s an accident, not a rule.
And again, saying this as somebody who agrees on “gif” having a hard g despite the delirious claims of its inventor.
jifts for Christmas
Yes, the time when you eat gingerbread and drink ginormous amounts of gin, if you get the gist
Let’s hang everybody who claims that gif is pronounced jiff, but not because (as you seem to imply) that’s not how “gi” is read in English because nothing is read always like anything ever in English
If people working at big companies had spare time, now that would be fantastic
Source: ex Amazon developer
If you really don’t get the “least/most adjective category” meme, I will explain - and therefore ruin - the joke:
Let’s imagine a category of people, an eminent trait of said category, and an element exhibiting it. For example the Italians are known to be fanatical about food orthodoxy, and you spot online an Italian guy raging about the wrong shape of pasta being used for carbonara.
You comment: [this guy here is the] “least fanatic Italian”, implying that as fanatical as this guy is, the others are worse.
What have you achieved? With only three words you have insulted his category (Italians are a bunch of fanatics) and the guy himself, by reducing him to a stereotype. Two offenses in three words, an excellent ratio. Just to be clear though, most of the time these are not used to mean the insult in a really insulting manner - it’s more of a banter.
It’s a pretty common way to insult people online, I’m surprised you haven’t encountered it much. Hope I helped.
Least self centered American over here, thinking the whole world is about their “shitface #1 vs shitface #2” pseudodemocracy
Sure but then the recommendations would be based on a snapshot of my watch history and would not evolve further, which kind of defeats the purpose
I have never watched it and probably never will- I’m sure it’s a great movie but the twist is one of the most spoiled in internet history :(