• 1 Post
  • 43 Comments
Joined 3 days ago
cake
Cake day: January 14th, 2025

help-circle

  • Can they though? Isn’t the responsibility of porting games to Linux that of the developer? They could create a Gamepass for Linux but that would probably entail more money spent on licensing that platform, and funding ports which they certainly have no economic incentive to do.

    That being said, they seem really committed to their “everything is an Xbox” strategy so it would not surprise me terribly if they ended teaming up with Valve at some point and created some kind of Gamepass on Steam thing, where you can play Gamepass games directly from steam or something, which would presumably also include the MacOS and Linux versions of the game if they are available.




  • Right? I’ve seen a lot of people on Reddit shitting on it and I for the life of me can’t understand why. The only big issue imo is the lack of a proper sleep mode. Hopefully Microsoft addresses this issue when/if they truly build a handheld windows experience.

    And yep, I’ll stick with Gamepass until enshitification runs its course. When it does then I’ll switch to SteamOS. But for now the service is still great for me.




  • I don’t want to get behind this type of thinking. I get it, I really do. I would also like to shake sense into people. But as you’ve seen that doesn’t work.

    I believe that all people should question authority and they should inform themselves using the proper sources without taking what anyone says at face value. Authorities will more often than not simplify and remove all nuance when communicating information to the masses and this is the root of the increased mistrust in vaccines with Covid came from. Authorities stated as facts things that they did not know were facts and overstated the effectiveness of the vaccines and then tried to silence the fact that in a small number of people the vaccine did cause cardiovascular issues. The government should have been upfront about that and explained why the trade off was worth it, but they didn’t because they erred on the side of thinking that people are complete morons. They may be, but we need to give them the benefit of the doubt.

    IMO, and this is maybe off topic but official authorities should have open and long panels in podcast format discussing why they take the decisions they take and explaining the people the benefits and risks, inviting dissenters and proponents so that people can make the most informed decision. Not for every decision of course, but at least for those health related decisions that affect everyone we should.

    I know many or even most will not do the right thing and inform themselves properly. But I also cannot stop believing that people are capable of finding good information and making the best decisions with the evidence available if we make that information easily accessible with all possible considerations. Because if I believe that people cannot make good decisions, then I necessarily also have to believe that we should limit the participation in our democratic society to only those who demonstrate this aptitude and I really really don’t want to believe that.







  • Did you read what I wrote? I said I hope, which means yes I am basing myself off of vague feelings because I can’t read the man’s mind nor Trump’s. But I can’t just dismiss RFK because he has a few bad takes, since I tend to agree with most of what he says outside of the vaccine stuff. Or do you disagree that Americans are over reliant on medications, that drugs shouldn’t be advertised, and that our food supply is horrible and toxic for the most part? Because these are not opinions, these are facts. For evidence look to countries that actually care about the well being of their citizens and you’ll find that their regulations are on the side of RFK.

    My expectation is that he won’t be allowed to do anything and will be fired 6 months into the job because he really wants to shake things up and that threatens the profit of a lot of corporations.

    My hope is that he will at least be able to remove drug advertising from TV, that nutrition labels will adopt a standardized serving size and that he limits the use high fructose corn syrup, additives and dyes in our food supply. If he fucks with vaccines well it’s only 4 years, we can fix it then. But I am almost certain he won’t ban vaccines and Trump wouldn’t allow it anyways, so the worse he can do is dissuade about their use. People can make decisions by themselves at that point, or so I have to think.



  • Im conflicted on RFK. He’s right on his takes about nutrition and over reliance of Americans on prescription drugs, and he may be right about flouride (which we have always known had risks). He also wants to ban drug advertising which is 100% necessary. Yet his takes on vaccines are so so bad that it counters all the good he could do if he was really able to clean the food toxic food environment of the US and curb the power of big pharma.

    I’m gonna hope for the best here. Vaccines are big business, so Trump might not let him make too many changes there. But so is food so who knows?



  • You’re still talking about DEI as a concept, which I’m in favor of. But you understand that in corporate settings things need to be quantifiable and diversity as a concept is nebulous, so in order to make it quantifiable corporations turn it into checklists and quotas. I know DEI as a concept doesn’t say that you HAVE to hire minorities and women over more qualified candidates. But I do know that corporations in order to quantify how diverse they are, and to be able to say they are diverse under whatever criteria someone at the top is using to judge said diversity will put policies in place like: we aim for 40% of our workforce to be minorities and women. And now the hiring managers have a very specific number of how many people in their team should be minorities.

    I do not have any extreme beliefs about DEI, I just know that many orgs implemented DEI in this way and when you do, the incentive becomes to meet the quota rather than hiring the best person for the job.

    Also you can’t just imply that I’m a bigot simply because I’m criticizing a fundamentally flawed implementation of an idea. That’s just being intelectually dishonest. I can be against DEI programs (because they are badly implemented most of the time, at least in my experience: anecdotal I know) and still be in favor of diversity.