Absolutely agree with this but there is no denying the innovation levels at spacex are higher

Undeniably, they’ve been doing amazing work (at least from my rocketry technology peasant point of view).

They landed people on the moon and then did fuck all for decades.

Indeed, all i was saying is that they were capable given budget and circumstances.

That budget and direction comes from the government.

When Musk started SpaceX he was not well known yet, SpaceX came before Tesla.

I will admit, i thought spacex was just another company he bought his way in to, like tesla, seems i was mistaken about that.

He was able to get into the businesses he has because he was rich yes, but you can find many accounts of engineers that worked under him speak of how good he was at finding ways to cut unnecessary costs.

And you can equally find many accounts of having to distract him from the day to day operations because he’s unreliable , unpredictable and chaotic (none of those meant in a good way).

He’s also known for buying good press and using litigation to silence people.

He’s not a technical genius that’s for sure. But he has been a good CEO for SpaceX.

I doubt this, but that could just be bias, i don’t have any actual evidence of the long term impact of him as CEO.

Recently though, he’s provably been significantly more of a liability than a benefit, even if just from a PR and public sentiment point of view.

But I refuse to simply wave away his achievements simply because I don’t like him. I can not like someone and still acknowledge they have done something good.

Indeed, i push back on the myth that he’s some self made tony stark genius, but it isn’t like he’s not achieved anything.

I would personally attribute most of that to neptoism, wealth, luck and opportunity, but that doesn’t remove the achievement itself.

You mean the NASA who landed people on the moon?

So let’s assume you aren’t a moon landing denier and use that as a baseline, NASA is clearly capable of things given the right circumstances and budget.

SpaceX benefited from his reputation and money, because they sure as shit didn’t benefit from his technical acumen.

Business wise he is successful because he’s rich and influential and that works to mitigate how shitty he is at actually running an organisation, that doesn’t mean he has skills as a business person that means he has money and influence, in his case originally from the mine, then from buying and bullying his was in to businesses that were technologically sound and boosting them with his money.

You could make an argument he’s a relatively good investor, but he’s an actively bad CEO.

They could stir up interest by actually finishing the first game.

There are supposed to be 5 story episodes, i think the last released episode (4) was three years ago.

Since then they’ve released a full DLC and are close to releasing the second game from what i can tell.

I’m not bitter or anything, i haven’t got past the second episode yet, so this makes zero difference to me personally.

In fairness is was full jank on release, the initial patches got it to “bethesda jank” where it was fun with the bugs (provided you could actually play it) but still bug ridden.

It got better over time, until just before the “big patch” came in that fully changed how it all worked skills and mechanics wise (gameplay was mostly the same).

Honestly i prefer, pre-“big patch” but the fully patched game is considerably smoother and more coherent.

So, aside from the years of post release development, completely missing features that are never actually coming (looking at you full transit system), it’s actually pretty good.

An absolutely dogshit way of releasing a game, but if you waited for a few years and bought it on discount , it’s actually a really fun game (provided you like that sort of thing).

TBC I’m not justifying anything about this process , it was a major fuckup and many other dev houses would have gone under from the weight of how badly they fucked it up, but they had that witcher money, so.

Sounds like you have an idea of what it means to you and are trying to foist that upon others.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

I don’t exactly disagree, but i think my stance is that the money is the reason and the morals/ethics are a byproduct of having to do what it takes to get that money, in certain markets.

Sure, enough pressure from the ad execs would bring about change, probably.

I just wanted to point out that they aren’t working with a moral or ethical baseline, only money.

I think they will care about complaints of convicted human traffickers.

I would lay money on them not giving a single solitary fuck unless it affects their bottom line somehow.

Is that screenshot purposely taken to make him look like henry cavill ?

or am i imagining it ?

that’s a dictionary definition , top tier cherry picking though, congrats.

Spotify paid ridiculous sums of money, specifically to get Joe Rogan.

They absolutely do not care about complaints about tate.

Not to say you shouldn’t try, you should, just that it’s screaming into the void until the monetary price of continuing support is greater than at least some combination of sunk cost + potential profit. ( so $250m + whatever their profit projections are ).

The differences here are that ORM and web frameworks weren’t actively making the job harder and the sheer surface area of the problem.

If you fuck up with a framework or an ORM, it generally just fails to work, the magic internals might not be super helpful with their error messages, but such is the nature of the tradeoffs.

If you fuck up with an LLM you get something that generally compiles and looks like it should work, that’s much more of a problem for both you and anyone who then needs to go trawling through, looking for the issues.

Are actions gold now, last i looked they were still a bit shonky?

Plex is a solid meh/10 back end wise, provided you have the knowledge to run the docker container it’s not that bad.

Running it standalone is potentially effort.

My main issue with plex is it’s transition into enshittification as a service.

i wasn’t the person who replied to your first post.

The sentiment might have been somewhat clear, but the language indicated a misunderstanding of how much reliance there is upon society, which is what was called out (again, not by me).

You asked a question, i answered with my opinion also i look fabulous in my pointdexter pants, i even have the matching pocket protector.

Lacks specificity, but the general sentiment is understood

Same reasoning behind using DEI instead of the actual words that acronym represents.

Mental illness is never an excuse for doing shitty things.

It can be, someone having a psychotic episode ( that couldn’t reasonably be prevented or mitigated ) that hurts the people around them has a legitimate excuse for the outcome.

Part of the actual definition of mental illness could broadly be interpreted as impairment or outright loss of reasoning and cognition.

It does require us to give them treatment to avoid harming others.

Agreed.

Though i’d say, provide the framework and access to treatment, but i think we mean the same thing.

It is dangerous to not broadly paint society as mentally I’ll.

That’s a very subjective take, with very vague language and almost no value as a talking point without more specificity.

To be clear, i’m not expecting an essay or anything, i just can’t really respond without more information about what you mean.

Look south of you. At least 30% of the US population is mentally ill, and they should all be given free treatment for this illness.

An interesting perspective, if somewhat US centric, i mostly agree.

None of which addresses my original criticism that the definition of mental illness isn’t something that should be ascribed to " all ‘terrorists’ ", it means something relatively specific and terrorism isn’t a good synonym.

Again, not what the definition of “mental illness” generally means.

Look up an actual definition or this

Can “terrorists” have mental illnesses?, sure.

Are all “terrorists” by definition mentally ill, doubtful.

Without even getting into the subjectiveness of the term “terrorist”, lets take your example.

There are plenty of situations where you can end up with that point of view and not have a legitimate “mental illness”, because that term means something relatively specific and isn’t a good enough fit with which to broadly paint all members of a group.

Another example of why it doesn’t fit is that there are plenty of people who are evil/bad/morally bankrupt (for whatever frame of reference you are using to determine such things) that shouldn’t get to use mental illness as an excuse for doing shitty things.