>Claims something is “widely considered”

Yeah, there was never any toxicity in any other fandom which got support.

100% of the material I see out of this makes it look terrible. People were posting some other video about “Maybe I was wrong about Sonic Frontiers” and it featured awful, slow mashy combat against an enemy so bland as to be absurd, followed by autoplatforming as the player does nothing but watch Sonic sit on a rail or…

See, this sounds appealing, but it raises the question: why not just put effort into the discrete tracks themselves, and hiding stuff therein? The benefit of an open world is “different ways to approach the same situation”, which can work, sometimes, for a racing game, but leads to poor design for platformers where…

How is this a turning point when Sonic games have been failing to work in 3D for 2 decades now?

Filipino spaghetti is an abomination. 

This is from the composer, right? Not the VFX people? I don’t see how this discounts the thinking that previs/storyboarding was done months ahead of time.

This article baffles me.

I have to say, that shot of the car going from the top view to the back view because they mounted a camera on the door was pure genius. What an elegant, obvious solution for a novel visual. How have I not seen this before? Between this and the camera-mounted-on-the-car-door-to-view-out-the-side-when-it-opened from…

I know you said not for me, but I wanted to thank you for this anyway, for two reasons.

Right, but also, again, that’s relatively uncommon. It seems very selective when this opacity becomes enough to overwhelm the output of academics vs not.

Yes, I think not wanting to listen to people who have experience in the field because they have experience in the field is pretty bizarre. Very self-fulfilling.

So, suspicions, not actual specific reasons? How does one trust any research to do with the financial field at all? It has no bearing; everything is equally possibly true and false simultaneously?

Yes, that makes it more clear, which is good, because it wasn’t before. Previously, it had seemed from your phrasing that the action of *limiting access* was dilutive. Specifically here, when you said this:

“It’s naïve to point out to a professional reporter that the term he uses is objectively incorrect and his pithy views on a subject are not necessarily borne out in research which actually shows a great degree more grey.”

Yes, these are all deals that went badly. Most M&A fails too. There are hundreds and hundreds of private equity transactions. A supermajority of PE deals don’t follow this trajectory. The fact that there are salient examples of failures does not change the model of an LBO. It’s as if I pointed to a few baseball games…

Well, no, buyouts of public companies *tend* to involve more job loss, in certain but not all conditions, from certain by not all deal structures, in the short term, before the companies are put back onto market, and in the meantime can boost the productivity of the industry as a whole. I’m glad we can at least agree…

1. They *always* shift the debt; that’s their main way of working.

Well, let’s see:

In the UChicago paper, they also point to a variety of scenarios which are good for employment. This is why, in the conclusions, they say there is no one size fits all.