Requiescat in pace, Mike Fahey. His voice was one of the most consistent and jovial on Kotaku, and it’s heartening to hear the impact he had on fellow journalists behind the scenes. Fahey always had his pulse on the weirder and dustier corners of gaming culture: mobile games, MMOs, toys, snacks, JRPGs, and other…

I mention these accomplishments not to prove gaming is worth taking seriously, but to take that thought one step further. If games are indeed as important as we say they are, then we should feel comfortable enough to hold them to a higher standard. If we truly respect this space, we should be able to challenge…

I'm done with the clickbait. Goodbye.

They aren’t excused though. I think you’re reading “excuse” into the reviews, when the flaws are acknowledged plainly for anyone to consider. This reviewer acknowledged the flaws bluntly but thought the CG is pretty good overall, and certainly better than the mediocre musical score. It’s not hard to find other…

I was replying to the original post’s own suggestion that bias affected the article and articles like it:

“It’s a good first effort” could also mean it’s (a) good and (b) a good first effort, words that would be delivered for any group’s first foray into CG.

Exactly. Just as Shadaab doesn’t necessarily have an anti-Ghibli bias because they think the appraisals of this work are too soft, I don’t see why one would read a pro-Ghibli bias into the original article, which I regard as judging the work fairly. Why would we suddenly assign biases here?

In addition to regarding style differently, we must also be reading this article differently.

I think it looks good, and I believe I would say that if it was put out by any other studio. Do you think that you have some anti-Ghibli bias making you react negatively to it, or is it possible that we both just happen to react differently to the style here?

I understand that his millions in wealth means that his comments on poverty should’ve taken with skepticism, and I certainly can make up my mind about where he is wrong, but I feel like Nathan here didn’t provide much beyond that to think about. Really lay out clearly why these comments don’t work, rather than…

In the unlikely racist fantasy where three white candidates are far and away the most experienced, it still does no harm to interview other qualified candidates. After all, it’s possible those three candidates are terrible fits for the position. “Best fit” is about more than experience; if that were not so, there…

None of these necessarily indicate a crash. They only indicate specific short squeezes.

“We” didn’t short a small group of stocks 12 years ago. The short was related instead to subprime mortgages held by banks.

It is, however, deeply angering to see how trading companies change the rules for the sake of Wall Street dude-bros.

Is there any proof that Activision Blizzard refused to interview minority applicants?

First of all, when you’re reading resumes, you don’t know what race or ethnicity a candidate is unless they put that information on the resume.

Yes, of course. I said it “counters a specific bias in hiring practices” by getting people to the interview stage. Other biases can take place in the interview stage.

The Rooney Rule assumes that hiring managers are really trying to hire the best people for the job and would like to avoid subliminal biases like expecting more from women and minority applicants on paper.

Sure. Let’s use a benchmark of CS and information science degrees from ~5 years ago. According to the National Center for Education Statistics with a quick percentage calculation, in 2015-2016 we had:

The Rooney Rule makes no requirement to hire for the sake of diversity.