Beamer wrote on Jan 2, 2021, 11:00:
Is there any better signal that someone has zero virtue than their use of the term "virtue signal?"

It's a sure sign of someone lacking in empathy and failing to comprehend that anyone can care about something other than themselves. Sociopathic, almost

And exactly what are they bitching about? That people don't stand silent in the face of racism, sexism, and other forms of injustice? That sure is what it seems like.

ColoradoHoudini wrote on Jan 1, 2021, 23:51:
No it shouldnt.

1. Kings are men
2. The best breakers in the world right now and since forever, are males
3. Stop virtue signaling.. it's sad.

every...single... one.. is a male

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1c8eKUlFbhk

Yeah, helps that you selected just the "right" video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzWMlBdBbRY

Scottish Martial Arts, thank you again for being a rational voice in an irrational world.

Scottish Martial Arts wrote on Sep 26, 2020, 09:37:
Conversely, do you realize how dangerous it is to accept an assertion, e.g. that something is "fake news", that is unsupported by an argument or evidence? Generally speaking, assertions of "fake news" are rarely accompanied by any explanation of why said news might be fake. Instead, such a claim boils down to an assertion of tribal identity, that a member of the enemy tribe only speaks in bad faith, and when we are presented with facts or arguments which challenge our tribe, we need only declare them false in order for them to be false. At that point, rationality, reasoned argument, and the values of the Enlightenment, i.e. the foundation of modern liberal democracy, are all out the window and we are willingly condemning ourselves to a premodern dark age.

Dude, so DAMN well said.

I've been ranting about tribalism destroying everything, especially politics for ages and I'm glad to find that there's another sane person in this universe.

Scheherazade wrote on Sep 14, 2020, 21:35:
I don't get how company a can tell company b to stop selling software that company a does not own and does not have rights to.

Because a corporatist elite sees no value in a government that does things like feeding or educating the poor, or ensuring that they have medical insurance.
A corporatist government has just one function: to maximize corporate profit - with the threat of force whenever necessary.

maddog wrote on Sep 8, 2020, 13:10:
Can we get a remastering of Soldier of Fortune? Loved shooting limbs off in that one.

I'd also settle for a new game or even a ripoff series by a competent developer.

VaranDragon wrote on Sep 22, 2019, 14:54:
Sad to hear about Eisenberg. DS9 was and remains one of my favorite TV shows ever, and probably inches ahead of TNG as the best Star Trek show IMO.

Yep.

DS9 was way underrated, and Eisenberg was great in it.

I gave up on Craig's Bond after Skyfall.

I did like Casino Royale a lot, but it seems they got marginally worse every outing.

Cutter wrote on May 24, 2018, 23:02:
Better still, dump Apple entirely.

Why? Then your corporate overlords won't be able to determine what you can use on the phone you own paid for.

Don't you believe in corporate rule capitalism?

eRe4s3r wrote on Jan 2, 2018, 21:21:
This issue isn't exploitable over the web anyhow.

Probably/possibly not true. Proof of Concept code, written in JavaScript, may exist, from the same people who discovered the bug.

https://nixcraft.tumblr.com/post/169209890277/the-mysterious-case-of-the-linux-page-table

"Big titles must wait"

I misread this, and man, I did a double take.

I think you over-rate Eli, but I still agree with you.

No way to treat the man.

eRe4s3r wrote on Aug 12, 2017, 00:14:
I would think any initiative that puts anyone who wants to work at a company at a substantial disadvantage because of race or sex

Seeing that there's a unwarranted minority of women at Blizzard, and their high turnover rate, the evidence suggests they are the ones at "a substantial disadvantage".

Which leads me to a question: I'm curious as why men currently being at a substantial advantage didn't warrant a mention.

And they specifically said what they were going to do, which isn't a quota. That also explicitly stated that they wouldn't have quotas. Yet you talk like they are instituting quotas, which are almost always used to limit women and minority candidates, not help them. Quotas are almost always used as a low ceiling, not a floor.

eRe4s3r wrote on Aug 12, 2017, 00:14:
Because negotiating for a better wage when the only reason you got hired over an equally skilled male/majority was that you looked like a female/minority is gonna put you at a huge disadvantage.

It's obvious that you've got that backwards. White men aren't always hired because they're more qualified, but often because they are white men. In this country, being a white man is often a qualification in and of itself.

Actually, the only question that matters is what does their desire to make the company friendlier to women have to do with making it unwelcome to white males?

That's a paranoid statement.

eRe4s3r wrote on Aug 11, 2017, 20:57:
And the best part

"We wanted to create a world where everyone was welcome."

Except, you know, white males

You mean the vast majority of the company? From the founders on down?

Maybe you should think that statement through.

Suggested response: Journalists should spend more time reporting on wars, less on banging their cohosts…

Ice. Cold.

And there's the problem with bad employers right there. Instead of wasting money on that sort of nonsense pay/treat your employees better and you won't have to worry about them quitting.

No, that's the problem with corporate America. Companies are arguably legally bound to do nothing but seek and maximize profit, so there is no reason to consider whether or not profit-seeking causes any harm to society, the environment, or in cases like these, employees.

Archer to end after 10 seasons.