That is how capitalism works, privatize earning and nationalize losses.
Capitalism needs the deep pockets of the government to not collapse into itself.
cmhe
joined 2 years ago
Exactly.
All I can point out that I don't see the a body moving, not breathing, no pulse and not reacting to external stimuli, all facts, but wherever or not this state is called "dead", I can decide for myself, and groups of people will have a final say on. Other groups might disagree, politics might be involved, maybe the issue will be settled, maybe not. I, as an individual cannot say how the outcome will be.
Hence, you are making it political. Like you yourself said, politics in itself a construct, not a natural force.
Wherever something is or isn't political is decided by the society, all I can do is point out potential issues, but that is not "making it political", just like pointing to something that is dead, doesn't suddenly makes it die. No it was dead before.
Granted, government policy affects peoples' wellbeing, which can definitely affect their political views, but making the jump to "everything is political" feels like a stretch?
Granted, maybe I was a bit too fast there. This should be better: "Everything has the potential to become political, as decided by the society."
Someone alone cannot decide what is or isn't politics. They need a couple of other people believing it too. But they can try to convince them. But software development most surely is, because it touches a lot of stuff, that many people think is political, even before getting into CoCs and used jargon.
Yeah but everything can become anything with enough effort. Everything can be violence too for example. Everything can be nothing. Everything can be food (at least once).
Maybe, but politics even stretches to thoughts and constructs. "Ideas" and "Hope" are politics.
Those cannot become food in a physical sense.
"Politic" is in itself a construct. Not something physical.
Doesn't change that something can be created without political intention, thought etc, no different than a sad poem written wasn't created with nihilistic purposes even though it could possibly be applied to nihilism.
Right, things can be created without thinking of politics or with a political intention/motivation, as I said, but they still be political.
Politics is everything where some kind of discourse or debate happens, where something can be judged and assessed, about how power should be handled and influenced.
At that point, it's you that's making something political, not the thing itself being political.
Well, I don't think you can "make something political", everything that exists can be perceived and analyzed from different perspectives, one of which is its impact on the society, which is a political viewpoint. And pointing that perspective out to others is not "making it political". It is about pointing out and making aware of an attribute that thing already has, wherever it was intended by the creator or not.
Wherever that raised a valid concern, is correct, or noteworthy is another topic.
Well, even if something isn't created "politically motivated" it can still be or become political.
What license do you choose? What platform do you choose to distribute it? What operating system do you support? What programming language and library dependencies do you have? On which platform do you manage your community or communicate with your customers or users? What feature do you add, or dismiss when writing the software. Etc. All of these are, or can become political issues.
Even if you decide to not release it for the public and keep it to yourself, can be a political issue. The mere existence of something can create a imbalance of capabilities, e.g. people with access to the software have advantages over people with no access to it, which can be political.
Even the mere fact that you possessed the resources, knowledge and time to create software can be or is political.
IMO, I would say everything is or can become a political issue. It just depends if there is some public interest and discourse. The intention or motivation of the developer doesn't matter.
Sure, it is largely the fanbase, however I also think that the game industry seems to sometimes do somewhat of a "woke-washing", meaning opically supporting the LGBTQIA movement because of financial, shitstorm-prevention or other reasons than just wanting to create more diverse and inclusive games.
For instance I like Hogwarts Legacy, but it also takes place in the Victorian era, and it seems to project the modern tolerant society ideals onto the wizarding world of that time.
Depicting the society as inclusive and diverse is somewhat history revisionist. If you play as a non-binary or trans person at that time, then you should have to deal with prejudice and marginalization, otherwise it is just "woke-wash" the history.
So, IMO there are some cases, especially in historic (fantasy) games, where injecting modern ideals and standards might not fit or needs to be better addressed, than just let it be cosmetic.
They shouldn't do a halfhearted job.
Well... cults with an exit are just groups of people.
Apple looks more like a cult, similar to Scientology. Linux user as well.
I would be careful about assuming knowledge based on age. Young people might use technology without understanding it, and old people might understand it and don't want to use it.
Technology needs to be regulated, and I would not trust people with profit incentives to do so.
IMO, it is always important to investigate if a regulation wants to prevent a real issue or if they just mention some populist reasons for doing whatever they want.
Hmm... Gordon Freemann having no lines was much more jarring that the silent protagonist in the Portal series.
Gordon is supposedly a brilliant scientist, but gets ordered around by NPCs that do nothing.
Portal protagonist has likely brain damage from being in stasis for a while, so I can assume they are just mute.
So it really depends on the game, setting and story, if a silent protagonist works or not. But having some character with emotions and agency would be good anyway, without requiring them to speak.
No, they will not, if they didn't already. Because convenience it key.
The browser war is over, and humans lost, corporations won. Google and other huge corporations control the biggest websites and most of the access to content on the internet.
They just need to make it inconvenient to use ad-blocking browsers.
They built their business on advertiser gambling, which seem to be flawed concept, because they keep on squeezing that tube for every penny more and more, in a race to the bottom.
But they are still in control of both browers and content so they have options to keep squeezing more.
So you want to use a ad blocker? Well, the browser that supports them might not be white listed (anymore) by the bot detector, and you have to solve captchas on every site you visit, until you come to your senses and use a browser, where ad blocking is no longer possible.
Oh, and all that is ok, because of "security". Because letting the users be in control of their devices and applications is "in-secure". They are just doing that to protect you from spam and scams, just trust them! Trust them, because they don't trust you!