Cât and lion are different species, traffic cone and butt plug could very well be the same plastic.

Hot take: no it hasn’t. Because the alternative is you don’t mark interactive objects. And then the stairs are somehow blending in with the background because of some color choices, or the day/night cycle makes you miss some object in the dark, or the ring you’re supposed to get for the main quest is lost in the grass and can’t be found etc.

And you know what you get then? The least immersive option in the world: the player can’t find the thing they’re looking for and can’t progress, so they log off and post a question on a forum and they continue to play in a day, when they receive the answer. I don’t think that’s more immersive than marking the object.

Holy shit, if that’s how they wanna play this, God’s telling me to shoot some insurance fucks.

Nice

Hard working unproductive people become in time hard working productive people. Lazy productive people become in time lazy unproductive people. Skill issue on your side tbh.

“Google solarpunk for the best tits”

I’m just gonna keep your initial claim here for visibility

Vigilante justice is always wrong

Now, where did I claim that it’s never wrong? Because that’s what you seem to argue. You won’t find such a claim from me though, because I agree with your implied point, which is more like “vigilante justice is usually wrong because an emotional mob doesn’t weigh facts or proportional response, it just acts based on feeling”. So yeah, that one seems great. But not ALWAYS wrong though.

I’ll just give another example, since you gave one as well. Kid1 gets his bike stolen by kid2. He sees it happening and while he doesn’t know the thief personally, he (with his parents help) contacts the police and provides a very detailed description of the bike and a decent visual description of the thief. Because this isn’t really a top prio case, nothing happens for about 6 months. Then kid1 sees kid2 riding the bike around town, and he lucks into kid2 parking it in front of a small shop and going inside. Kid1 walks up to the bike, makes sure it’s his, and rides off into the sunset with it.

So I ask - was it really always wrong for me to go and get my bike back?

He said that even after he couldn’t get an erection, he would still imagine killing and having sex with people because it made him feel alive.

“I know exactly what you mean. You know what’s better? When they’re old and lonely and can’t fight back or don’t have anyone who’ll believe them. I once shoved a kitchen knife in a 90 year old’s ass cause he wouldn’t stop whining when I fucked him. He loosened up real good after that.”

Worst case scenario, you creeped out an old man with a bad sense of humor. Best case scenario, for the last days of his life a twisted psycho murderer who’s been hiding his true nature behind good deeds gets to feel a tinge of fear whenever he’s not sure he locked his door.

Vigilante justice is always wrong.

You keep saying this, but I don’t understand why. Hear me out.

So, vigilante justice is justice outside the legal system. If you say it is always wrong, you implicitly say that the legal system is the only way to resolve things. In an ideal society, I would grant you that. But you’re aware that even our laws today are imperfect, let alone the laws from tens or hundreds of years ago. So how can you stand by that claim? Surely if we allow for the system to be imperfect, it must mean that vigilante justice is sometimes the only possible way to achieve justice, and therefore right?

Aside from this: even if the system was perfect, laws are society’s convention. They are not natural, they are man-made. That means man can also change them (and we do, constantly - parliament/congress/senate/whatever form it takes). But even if they weren’t in constant change and they would reach a stability - is it still not the case that society must agree to obey them? If you give me hammurabi’s code and tell me to live my life by it, I may agree and do it or I may think you’re a fool and not do it. Same here - just because a vocal minority has decided the law that should govern everyone (even if that law is just and fair and impartial and righteous and by all means perfect) - it doesn’t guarantee that it will be followed by the majority. So there will be situations where each of us will be a vigilante, outside the system of laws imposed by a third party. Is that really ALWAYS wrong to do? Because I can personally think of very many situations where it’s not wrong.

So a country’s internal politics don’t matter unless they fall to Russia - that’s what you said, right?

But wouldn’t you agree that the country’s internal politics are what decides if it falls to Russia or not? If education is not a subject they invest in, if its population isn’t happy with the status quo, if they exhibit corruption, if their healthcare system is so bad that the middle class emigrates and leaves behind only the oligarchs and the poor, if their justice system doesn’t work and they don’t feel safe… All these internal politics have a huge impact on if a country can be influenced by Russia or any other nefarious agent.

I don’t get what you’re saying. You keep saying “yeah but we don’t care about X”, while X seems to be the direct cause of some of your problems that you DO care about. Are you trying to say Romania should take care of its shit internally so we don’t have to deal with it, and not let it grow to the point where it’s a problem for the rest of the EU?

Does this election not matter?

Briefly? No.

1. This is the first round of elections. It’s not a FPTP system. Yes, he has a good shot at winning. But now he has to earn the votes which went to the “third party”, so to speak. Which is difficult for both of the current candidates.

2. Romania’s president has limited power and responsibilities. He’s there as a a dignitary and usually handles foreign affairs more than internal ones. He’s also powerless - the government and the parliament are where the power is.

3. Both these people are corrupt fucks. There is no winning this election. Yes, one’s worse than the other. I’d struggle to say which, although the pro-russian seems to be just a tad more evil.

4. Human nature. Sure, the guy is pro Russia. Great. But how much time will he have to actually bring Romania closer to Russia if he has to split that time between trying to get the country out of NATO and trying to steal enough to retire comfortably? He won’t get anything done, he’s too greedy for it.

Edit: Seems like the number 2 spot in the election may be taken by a less corrupt candidate than initially thought - this invalidates my 3rd point a bit. I stand by the rest though.

Linus Torvalds expressed frustration over the use of passive voice in merge commit messages, preferring active and imperative language instead.

Things To Care About, vol 147, 2nd edition

men are the primary perpetrators

the number of women who do it is such a small percentage as to be almost statistically insignificant compared to the number of men who do.

Men commit sexual assault every single day

barely 5% of them get prosecuted for it.

Citation needed

Listen, it’s very obvious we’re not on the same page. You’re responding to a comment thread that contains a comment literally contradicting most of your points, and you’re not being rational about it. You’re spouting wild claims with little regard for backing them up - it’s as if în your head, they’re axioms and not only do they not require proof, but invalidating them would mean the rest of the world crumbles. And I’m sure for you, that’s true.

All things considered, continuing this “discussion” brings no value to either of us. Have a good one.

Thread has a photo of a sign saying “not all men but always a man”.

Bringing up the statistic of female perpetrators is simply a way of deflecting the responsibility of

No. Bringing up the statistic is a way of correcting an intentionally skewed view that is vilifying men for no fucking reason. If you’re gonna be a dick about things, don’t go crying when you get shafted.

Probably seeing what amount of pain each asshole driver can suffer before they die. Hope you’re at least a 9, OP!

Yes, like most normal people do.

There’s a lot of discussion when you’re a software dev about the best way to do things, and a lot more is spent on this debate than on actually writing code. One could wonder if there is so much discussion because there are so many good ideas that it’s difficult to choose the one that is optimal for the situation.

But then you read one of these posts on lemmy and you are reminded that someone with internet access and thumbs could spare the short time they have to take a shit to egregiously misunderstand a simple fucking slogan, smugly post about their shit take on the internet, and then return to their job where they will then spend hours misunderstanding the simplest of fucking concepts, slowing down everyone else along with them.

Um… No. If the company doesn’t value my time by posting a correct job listing, I don’t want to work for them. These are the same HR people posting the jobs who will then have trouble maintaining a good work environment, or making sure people aren’t abused/harassed in the workplace. These people will have access to your data and you’ll be trusting them to not make paper airplanes out of your SSN. And if it’s not HR creating the job postings, it’s some low/mid-level manager you might have to work for some day. Do you really want Mr “better make sure the new waiter knows how to install HVACs” handling your workload and giving you tasks?

When a company tells you its HR department is full of idiots I think you wanna listen to them.

“shouldn’t you be bombing hospitals” is better.

Violence.

Removed by mod