I recall being pleasantly surprised when I played it as well. It tried some new things, but it felt hamstrung by a vague sense of “publisher interference.” 

I get being suspicious, but “game site explains how to access free games available on well-known service” doesn’t exactly seem like their taking a sledgehammer to (the sad shell that remains of) the wall between editorial and advertising.

Don’t fret, words have no meaning anymore. Headline words even less so.

While clearly there are always mitigating circumstances, I would expect that, on aggregate, highway rear-end collisions are disproportionately the fault of people being much, much, less responsible than they should be under the circumstances. It would not surprise me to find “but autopilot!” to become the automatic…

Design phase 1: Exterior design, taking cues from classic Mini styles while leaning heavily into current aesthetics.

It seems like arresting the staff, especially the pilot, for manslaughter is ridiculous.

Instead of responding like a normal person, your mentor says that you’ve weakened him by showing charity. This by itself would have been fine, except the game then showed me a vision of the man being beaten up for his loose change.

I want this to succeed because it’s always great to have fun, good, games to play, but I also have a sense that this game succeeding - or rather, those two succeeding - says something important about the maturation of game design as a medium.

In related news, Riccitiello’s young son said that claims about cookie theft are “bullshit” and that the jar his hand was in was a coffee jar that had been repurposed to hold cookies. “If you understand the context,” the younger Riccitiello said after wiping away crumbs, “it’s clear that I was not caught with my hand…

Yeah, that’s where I’m at. Loud music in cars is annoying as hell, but that’s not really what this is about.

100% agree with that. Anyone who’s knowledgeable enough to run their own email server also knows why that’s a bad idea.

I’m not arguing at all about what he should or should not criticize so I don’t really know where you’re getting that. It’s great to be critical. I think there’s an argument to be made that saying, “I disagree with your view on X so I refuse to consider anything else you say” isn’t criticism as much as dogmatism, but…

Thing is, there’s local levels of fuckwaddery - that’s the one I’m going with because it’s easier to type - that can make the fuckwad not realize that they are, in fact, a complete and total fuckwad. Like, generally a racist isn’t a racist in isolation. They’re not surrounded by their integrated, kumbaya-singing…

This is one of those tough nuts to crack, especially with all of the ridiculous information and rage-bait hot takes moving around these days. I get where you’re coming from, but there’s a key difference Swift’s satire.

I certainly understand the sentiment, but this type of thing has been tried and, unfortunately, it doesn’t work and only serves to make life more difficult for societies already vulnerable members.

OK, cool. I think that’s somewhat misrepresenting his admittedly defeatist perspective on DRM in HTML5, but that’s fine. I just want to make sure that you’re aware of the irony of posting on a web page about your commitment to disregard the work of Berners-Lee because you disagree with him on a topic. Perhaps telnet…

Well that just makes no sense - you’re comparing apples and assholes.

At this point I figure this’ll be buried, but I wanted to point something out:

Balaska, you’re wrong. It’s OK to be wrong.

The analogy is simple that the theoretical capabilities of a component of a whole only matter up to the point where the whole can match that performance.