What you described as enjoyable isn’t “Skyrim” that’s just the Gamebryo engine. The Companions don’t figure into a physics glitch that rockets you up to kiss the twin moons. Nocturne and the Nightingales aren’t relevant to a horse glued at an 85° angle to a mountain face. You’re just describing mucking around in a less interactive GMod. But people did like the mage who pancaked himself with a jump spell, the woman who is absolutely a necrophiliac, and Glarthir’s deranged quest. Actual components of those games that were done well. We all want them to make the game better so we actually want to experience all the bits that are well done and funny.

The Elder Scrolls isn’t popular because of the shitty engine. It’s memed because of the engine, but the games are generally fun enough to keep playing through the more benign bugs. And, like shared trauma, we all laugh about the bad bits in hindsight.

The post is not apologia and not making light of his crimes. The post is saying there was no one who had leverage on him such that they could force him to do all the stupid shit he did. He just invaded a country and kicked off multiple decades of war in the Middle East for no comprehensible reason, like compromat. In the absence of a “mitigating reason” (as much as you can mitigate “war crimes”), it makes his actions look even worse

I had never heard of W gaining direct financial compensation from going to war. Oiling the US war machine doesn’t directly benefit many politicians; it just hoes the farmbed to ensure a healthy crop of corruption keeps growing.

And they obviously read part of it based on their comment. Either they stopped after the arrows or their reading comprehension is USA-tier. Them and everyone who voted them up.

That is essentially a non-sequitur

Ah, makes sense. Thank you.

I don’t get “elbows up”?

These people are flooding free projects with shite code: they lack that level of self-awareness.

But you believe a formal declaration that they don’t want AI crap code will stop complaints from the degenerates who then try to sneak it in? Or the people who complain that they’re “needlessly denying good code”? People will always complain and argue.

I’m not awake enough (nor qualified enough) to get into “laws” and what they’re “actually for” but sufficed to say that I don’t think the analogy applies to a curated resource. Sure, it’s free but it does have an owner and you can’t stop the owner from doing what they want with it, including unilaterally canning random contributions. You just fork it.

I can’t believe you’ve done this horrific thing to me /s

I never use the tag. Anyone annoying enough that I want to remember not to engage with them, I just default to blocking. Do they post good content or something?

Also lining up to take pictures and beg for a turn, if the preponderance of pedophiles in their leadership continues as a trend in the voters.

Is all AI code tagged “hey, Claude made this puddle of piss code”?

This is a real “just catch all the criminals” type comment.

A system that benefits people who lie about objective facts should be destroyed.

If the tactical business decision is to look someone in the face and say “spending 2/3rds of a day, 16 whole hours, idly gazing at photos of anything is not an addiction” in order to protect business interests, then things are wrong. Addiction to a product should be met with horror! Oh no, how could this happen? Instead, it’s part of the business model.

“Business” is a blight.

And who says it can’t be both?

I don’t feel that gratified that they’re fine with white supremacy but draw the line at pedophilia. Even if they weren’t just racist rats fleeing a sinking ship.

I am judging…

Hot.

Hey, buddy? That’s not a new sentence for a lot of people.

Yeah…a time traveller would be able to jump forward less backward in time to check that.

But Stephen Hawking wasn’t a time traveller, he just wanted time travellers to visit him.

I think what the person you’re replying to was hinting at is the common understanding (at least among those with queer-awareness) of the difference between sexuality and romance.

A person could be asexual but still be in a romantic relationship that positively engages with Valentine’s Day.

I commisserate with your awful experience as a child, and that picking up the label of “asexual” probably simplifies the dialogue of explaining your situation. It sounds like your trauma affects you in ways that you are effectively asexual (and possibly aromantic). I’m not a mental health expert, just friends with queer people.

But people will be pedantic about this topic, unfortunately. You’re hitting a cross-heading of people that feel strongly about the specific definitions of these sexualities because of how much dis/misinformation there is from bad actors. There is also the reverse-reasoning that asexuality is because of something, like trauma, instead of a naturally-occuring sexuality.

I don’t write this to demean you, invalidate your experiences, or even to “teach” you, but to hopefully highlight a context from which you and some well-meaning person might align yourselves as opponents.

You can’t debate what is worth human effort without defining a human’s purpose.

And I don’t trust anybody who tries to tell me what humanity’s purpose is.

What? It’s a piece of fashion: it doesn’t need a “purpose”. You want to wear monocolor onesie jumpsuits everywhere?