Your games are mediocre now.

It's better to have a mediocre game that one can play, than an exceptional game that one can't.

You're free to make games now, and yet it's most often hard to justify money for a game that isn't a skin on a version of solitaire (on sale).

That's how bad your industry is. So, please, with your warning. As if you have work product to bargain with.

You act as if your industry is busy. Outside of a couple of exceptional studios, and infinite sequels on literally only a few popular formulas (whether or not these formulas are good is another discussion), your industry is largely non-productive. If we are utilizing your metric of good vs mediocre.

I agree with you that there is a mountain of shit in the gaming industry.

Is any other industry different? Are Instagram and Tiktok literally not brainwashing hundreds of millions of people? Do defense companies care that innocents are murdered with their weapons? Do airplane companies face any enforceable moral judgment that they encourage relatively rich people to engage in idle leisure in other countries rather than being productive with their time for society, to which they owe some level of production in exchange for the society that raised them?

The argument knows no bounds. It is a matter of taste.

Points for the most insane answer possible, no offense. No idea what you are talking about.

Given that you work for the video game industry, perhaps your comment is in a sense perfect.

The last part of it is just me going off the rails, but do you really think only the game industry is bad?

Good luck with that really weird approach.

You implied that lower class burials were likely in the Nile.

To advance the argument that a pot burial likely didn't indicate a poor burial.

Full employment transitioning to mean middle class job, or replacement income, would be wild.

Point the way to the line for rigid economic class assignments.

I wonder how is this cognitive development progress was measured, and I question the results of whichever study this refers to.

I acknowledge that "bilingual tots seem to outperform in cognitive development in the early years" seems both intuitive and logical.

This is a string of words that we'd expect to find together. We'd almost be offended if they weren't. Because both bilingualism and learning more things are better.

My concern over the reference to this research is that early cognitive development milestones are largely language acquisition milestones, and it has long been known that language acquisition is somewhat behind in bilingual tots. Rather than accelerated.

Generally, it is assumed that bilingual child development metrics will later catch up to those of their peer group.

Which is the inverse of "their monolingual classmates may catch up with them later".

Bilingual children aren't actually cognitively delayed, if only marginally on the face of their assessments, but rather they tend toward having a temporary delay in language acquisition due to to their bilingual environment. With any cognitive development disadvantage that this could theoretically cause essentially being non-risk.

However, I've never seen anything that indicates performant development due to bilingualism. Just the opposite, to a statistically relevant degree. Even if only marginally behind.

This is textbook information and part of the body of knowledge of language acquisition. It's not a vanguard research topic.

I don't have experience with CoPilot, but I do with other LLMs. I'm not sure that omitting "provide me with" is enough to get the job done, generally, aside from being lucky that it correctly interprets the prompt. In my experience, other LLMs are just as prone to incorrect divination of what one means given telegraphic prompts.

Its rational to treat receipts like toxic waste. They need to create a law governing their toxicity, if for nothing else than almost everyone will continue to be unaware of it. Including cashiers.

I don't know how people justify handling newspapers either.

Smaller companies are way worse to work for, almost always. Everyone knows this.

Starting a successful company is virtually impossible, just looking at failure rate. Poverty is the outcome for whomever doesn't succeed and can't find a return to the workforce.

What a hostile work environment in corporate America is an argument for, actually, is either poor mental health or more Federal Employment. It reads like that's what you want.

A healthy corporate America is the only real antidote to massive dysfunction.

It isn't a coincidence that a healthy corporate America aligns with both a massively healthy GDP and a normal to advantageous labor pool for the average person.

I guess you can be whatever you want, but the type of language that you and they use is variously so general and insulting that any type of response should be on the table.

For example, do cops participate here? Or people with cops in their families? Yet, we have a person who, in my opinion, seems to struggle with concepts of daily life that is calling them bastards.

Is that opinion moderated? If not, are in-kind responses allowed?

Or perhaps this forum is institutionally skewed to the poster's juvenile opinion.

This forum is skewed towards capitalists, and cops protect property. Its not a juvenile opinion to point out how power works. Its actually my only hobby on this site.

And for people who have cops in their family, its not unknown to me. Its like having family in a gang. Or the mob. They're fine people, you can have dinner and enjoyable conversations. But when the gang comes up in discussion they're gonna protect the colors.

The fellow who responded and then blanked their post I think is European, which with no guns and a socialist safety net I might allow have a different flavor than US police, founded as possibly the town watch instead of slave catchers and immigrant beaters. But this is an article about the DEA, ACAB is very appropriate.

> Yet, we have a person who, in my opinion, seems to struggle with concepts of daily life that is calling them bastards.

> Or perhaps this forum is institutionally skewed to the poster's juvenile opinion.

Cops are as much bastards as criminals are. In an ideal society both should not exist. Nobody should be given the right to use lethal force against whomever they decide at the time to be necessary and it is totally fine to have this opinion and state it in public.

> It's psychotic (divorced from reality) and immature.

Would you mind sharing where are you from? There are many countries were the cops are literally criminals, like mine.

I would love to be able to have the same innocence as you, treating cops as heroes that risk their lives to protect society.

Since you are from a country other than the one in which this site originates, and are asking where I am from, maybe first you should post where you are from.

If your country did not have cops, who would enforce the laws that are enforced?

Would the most powerful gang simply become the new government? Who?

Would you prefer pre-civilization to civilization, wherein there are no laws?

I well know the dynamics of mafia, and how they relate to the Police.

The system is not perfect, but it is the core structure of civilization.

We try to limit police power via the law, internal controls, and hiring moral men.

Some of that is breaking down everywhere. But its not breaking down via the prescriptions of those who designed the system.

Where in your system have the fail safes failed? No judgement, just curious.

Does your country have the potential for law and order, or not? Why not? What would you do differently, which is realistic?

"Truth" in Education, understanding, and Press easily becomes "propaganda and lies" without the system blinking nor anyone being notified.

The only way to ensure the existence of truth is to give people a choice in what to believe. There are no wildflowers (truth) without also permitting weeds (lies). Certainly, no "organization to manage and protect" can be trusted to manage and protect truth.

The democratic ideal is that people are permitted to come to their own conclusions, given all arguments. Not that the arguments are institutionally restricted.

What happens when your ideological opponents suddenly come into control of the "truth police"?

Freedom to choose is the only protection, unless one's goal isn't democratic.

> The only way to ensure the existence of truth is [...]

there is no way to ensure the existence of a thing until there is first some consensus on how the thing is defined.

with the conservative right adopting and extending foucault-era post-modern epistemology ("alternative facts", "that's just, like, your opinion"), it isn't even possible to discuss what "the truth" is, because the agreement on what how we would arrive at an answer is has been undermined (intentionally so, IMO).

for some period of time, much of the west's population bought into the idea that truth was arrived at using some variety of evidence collection, falsification, logic, experimentation and debate. this consensus has been undermined to the point where questions like "do vaccines cause autism" can be asked without any willingness to engage with the historical definition of how a true answer would be arrived at.

I'm speaking about an environment that passively allows truth by default, because of truly free speech. Something that works simply, and that people can simply understand. Which is a prerequisite for democracy.

You're arguing for active assurance of truth, assumedly forced on people, which isn't possible in principle. While using pseudo-intellectual refences to Foucault and the scientific method in an attempt to slyly imply that, in the end, truth has to be defined by your party interests.

I argue for freedom of individual choice, which is the fundamental democratic principle. You're arguing for the need for society wide consensus in belief, which is not a democratic principle.

Does a willingness to engage with the historical definition of how a true answer "would be arrived at" include the functional banning of future science and debate?

For the record, I wrote a graduate paper on the best evidence for the cause of autism. Not that the then-current best evidence definitely revealed the cause, but only that it was the best evidence at the time. Although the evidence did not point to vaccines, I would hold anyone who wanted to ban such debate as being too academically compromised to be a member of the scientific community. In private, I would be more direct.

> You're arguing for active assurance of truth, assumedly forced on people,

No, this is the opposite of what I'm arguing for. I'm saying that if a community agrees on a definition of what truth is (the old consensus was "something arrived at via a process mostly like <this>"), then "truths can exist" within that community. By contrast, if they do not agree on a definition what truth is, then no truths can exist within that community.

I'm not using references to Foucault to talk about what I think about defining truth; I'm making those references because that's what the public intellectual underpinnings of the alt-right relies on. Personally, I think that some of what Foucault had to say is insightful and interesting, but the extension of his observations to knowledge in general is unsupportable. And not just unsupportable - utterly destructive of a consensus about truth-generating processes that in turn is vital for functioning (democratic) communities.

> You're arguing for the need for society wide consensus in belief

No, I'm arguing for a society wide consensus about how we choose between beliefs. Societies in the past have had this and still accomodated different beliefs. Most of the time this is resolved by noting that the beliefs can't be resolved via evidence. For example: what is the correct role of the state? There is no truth-generating process that can provide an answer to this question, but there can still be multiple different beliefs about the right answer.

> anyone who wanted to ban such debate

The issue is not "ban such debate". The issue is unwillingness to tackle in good faith the debate that has already taken place. No truth-generating process can involve an ever-present willingness to endlessly discard things already accepted as true. Clearly, it cannot refuse to ever reconsider either. So the actual path followed is a compromise between these two: if you don't have radically divergent and NEW evidence or data explanations for something considered settled, you'll have to wait a while. We're not going to relitigate whether the earth is round or not unless someone comes along with either major new data that is incongruous with our current "truth" about this, or someone finds incongruities within the data/"truth" we already have. That doesn't mean "debate is shut down" - it's a reflection of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary whatnot to be worthy of spending any time on".

I don't think anyone serious claims to know the cause of autism; I don't think anyone serious claims it is vaccines, which is in turn a reflection of what the the truth-generating process (the one we had consensus about until recently) says about that.