If someone sends me a one word reply of “yes” to “what is the purpose of this meeting and is my presence beneficial” then it wouldn’t matter what I asked lol.

lol

But just to reiterate the point I was making earlier, the idea is to avoid someone responding to “what is the purpose of this meeting and is my presence beneficial” with something along the lines of “the purpose is to discuss X, Y, and Z. Yes your input would be a big help thanks.”

Curious on your thoughts on the suggestion I made and whether it improves communication or not?

If you ask the person who invited you to a meeting “is my presence beneficial” they’re going to answer “yes”. That’s why they invited you.

The purpose is to figure out whether your presence is actually needed, not whether they think it is.

I do like a lot of your ideas though, I might suggest:

“What is this meeting about? I’m trying to figure out if my presence would be beneficial.”

That way you are the determinant of whether your presence is necessary, and the other person has to articulate what the actual benefit would be as opposed to just saying “yes”.

The guns exist out there and the protesters exist out there. You’d just need some mobilizing incident to spark them not to leave the guns they already own at home next time.

It seems an easier solved problem than you let on.

This is the plot of Click

That’s fine. But then don’t pretend you have an issue with entitlement or hypocracy.

Don’t like the price a company is asking for for an entirely optional commodity? Don’t fucking pay it. It’s not that hard.

Don’t like the discussion a community is having for an entirely opinionated topic? Don’t fucking comment. It’s not that hard.

There is a problem with a lot of the people that practice polygamy in an unethical way

That is what the person you responded to said. There is a problem with the cultural of polygamy here because it’s done in an unethical way.

but not polygamy itself.

That is also what the person you replied to said. They clarified specifically that if both genders are free to practice polygamy in the same way there’s no issue.

If you’re talking OpenEvolve you have to specific put in the tests and expected values for each function for this approach to work.

if I were there would be proof that’s why your example is a false equivalence.

Not necessarily. This is lemmy, you’re on a completely anonymous account. I wouldn’t expect to have any proof.

Maybe you just didn’t get caught yet.

If the Christian God exists, for example, there would be no way of knowing for certain

I was willing to grant you the philosophical God argument, but if you want to evoke the Christian God you’re now making a whole bunch of positive claims.

Why don’t we look at the evolutionary record and see whether all of humanity comes from Adam and Eve or if animals evolved from a common ancestor?

We can look for evidence of a flood, or an exodus and see there is none.

We can track the history of Yahweh, and how he was syncretized with El and Baal from Caananite faiths, and morphed over centuries from a local Storm/war God to the only God.

The early Israelites engaged in polytheistic practices that were common across ancient Semitic religion, because the Israelite religion was a derivative of the Canaanite religion and included a variety of deities from it, including El, Asherah, and Baal. Initially a lesser deity among the Cannanite pantheon, Yahweh in later centuries became conflated with El; Yahweh took on El’s place as head of the pantheon of the Israelite religion, El’s consort Asherah, and El-linked epithets, such as ʾĒl Šadday (אֵל שַׁדַּי‎), came to be applied to Yahweh alone. Characteristics of other deities, such as Asherah and Baal, were also selectively absorbed in conceptions of Yahweh.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh

We can compare the contradictions between the behavior of the Old Testament God and Jesus to conclude like early Christians such as Marcion of Sinope Yahweh and Christianity are incompatible

Study of the Hebrew Bible, along with received writings circulating in the nascent Church, led Marcion to conclude that many of the teachings of Jesus were incompatible with the actions of Yahweh, characterized as the belligerent god of the Hebrew Bible. Marcion responded by developing a ditheistic system of belief around the year 144.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcion_of_Sinope

We can compare the Gospels and see where they copied stories from the Iliad/Odyssey.

Odyssey Location Mark Location

Athena descends like a bird 1.319-324 Spirit descends like a dove 2:1-2 Sailors volunteer to follow Athena 2.383-413 Fishermen volunteer to follow Jesus 1:16-20 Nestor’s feast for 4500 men 3.1-68 Jesus’s feast for 5000 men 6:30-44 Menelaus’s wedding feast 4.1-67 Jesus’s feast for 4000 8:1-9 Odysseus enters city behind mules 6.252-261 Jesus enters city on an ass 11:1-11 Alcinous’s prolific figs trees 7.112-121 Jesus curses unprolific fig tree 11:12-14 Blind Demodocus among sailors 8.471-473 Blind man at “House-of-fisherman” 8:22-26 Lotus-eating, forgetful comrades 9.62-107 Forgetful disciples at sea 8:19-21 Polyphemus the cave-dweller 9.105-525 Dangerous demoniac from caves 5:1-20 Aeolus’s bag of winds and gale 10.1-55 Jesus calms winds and sea 4:35-41 Cannibals at the harbor 10.76-136 Hostile Pharisees at the harbor 8:10-13 Following a water carrier to dinner 10.100-116 Following a water carrier to dinner 14:12-16 Circe turns soldiers into swine 10.135-465 Jesus sends demons into swine 5:1-20 Odysseus’s last supper before Hades 10.546-561 Jesus’s last super and Gethsemane 14:32-42 Death of young Elpenor 10.546-560 Flight of naked young man 14:43-52 Blind seer Tiresias 11.90-94 Blind seer Bartimaeus 10:46-52 Death of Agamemnon at a feast 11.409-430 Death of the Baptist at a feast 6:14-29 Burial of Elpenor at dawn 12.1-5 Young man at tomb at dawn 16:1-4 Eurylochus’s vow 12.298-305 Peter’s vow 14:26-31 Eurylochus’s broken vow 12.367-396 Peter’s broken vow 14:66-72 Eumaeus’s Phoenician nurse 15.417-491 Syrophoenician woman 7:24-30 Odysseus’s transfiguration 16.172-301 Jesus’s transfiguration 9:2-13 Suitors plot to kill Telemachus 16.383-385 Vinedressers kill the beloved son 12:1-12 Conspiracy to kill Telemachus 17.182-213 Conspiracy to kill Jesus 14:10-11 Penelope’s hospitality 17.534-547 Generous widow at temple 12:41-42 Irus the beggar 18.1-94 Barabbas the brigand 15:6-15 Telemachus’s amazement at house 19.35-43 Disciples’ amazement at temple 13:1-2 Penelope’s request for a sign 19.102-271 Disciples’ request for a sign 13:3-8 Prophetic oak at Dodona 19.296-307 Prophetic fig tree 13:28-31 Eurycleia washes her master 19.370-575 Woman anoints Jesus 14:3-9 Eurycleia’s recognition of Odysseus 19.474-486 Peter’s recognition of the Messiah 8:27-30 Odysseus slays suitors in his house 22.17-86 Jesus expels merchants from temple 11:15-19 Contested authority over the house 22.221-233 Contested authority over the temple 11:27-33 Odysseus hacks to death evil slave 22.474-477 Bystander slices off a slave’s ear 14:43-5

https://testimonia.pl/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/MacDonald.Mimesis.pdf

Or also where they contradict each other

If you spend enough time focusing on the truth of this you will eventually conclude you cannot prove your belief like they cannot prove theirs so neither side has anything demonstrable.

I don’t think theist Christians would agree with that though. Quoting Tertullian:

We do not worship your gods, because we know that there are no such beings. This, therefore, is what you should do: you should call on us to demonstrate their non-existence, and thereby prove that they have no claim to adoration; for only if your gods were truly so, would there be any obligation to render divine homage to them. And punishment even were due to Christians, if it were made plain that those to whom they refused all worship were indeed divine. But you say, They are gods. We protest and appeal from yourselves to your knowledge; let that judge us; let that condemn us, if it can deny that all these gods of yours were but men.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0301.htm

When it comes to a philosophical creator god I agree with your statement, this view describes agnostic atheism.

The assertion that there is no God cannot be proven as you cannot prove a negative.

Correct, no one argued that.

There assertion that there is a divine entity cannot be logically demonstrated in any valid way logically speaking.

Correct again.

The validity of either claim cannot be tested and thus have the same overall value and it is a matter of which you choose to accept.

Do you really mean that?

If I were to accuse you of something terrible like being a child molester with absolutely zero evidence…

That’s valid? You can deny it, but your denial is of equal value to my accusation right? So if everyone in this comment section chooses to believe you molester children from now on… do you have a problem with that?

The reason I’m an atheist is the same reason I don’t believe you’re a child molester yet. I think there is a burden of proof of evidence that would need to be met before the accusation needs to be taken seriously.

Frogger 2: Swampy’s Revenge was genuinely great though

That’s why I only play AAAA games

And yeah, it’s the same old “they really knew how to make * in the past”. Houses, bridges, spoons, video games, whatever. It’s just that the well made ones survive, and the badly made ones don’t.

Idk, there’s certain structures like the pyramids where you gotta give credit where credit is due.

They really knew how to make some shit.

You just listed a bunch of animated children’s movies?

If you’re looking for actual examples there’s Silent Hill, Fallout, or The Last of Us.

I get where you’re coming from.

B. The game is a product that they want to sell to more people, adding difficulties sells more

Sure. Not not necessarily untrue.

I don’t see the issue either way

My stances is forced here. I support the artists.

Unfortunately, supporting artists means sometimes you have to disagree with the businessmen when the two groups disagree.

Selling microtransactions and skins and deluxe editions and pre-order exclusive content, etc, etc all “sells more” (or at least makes more money).

If the artists feel for whatever reason adding more difficulties is too much to manage or prevents them from making the experience they want to make, I have to take the side of the artist.

There’s always going to be an argument the product needs to change to make more money, that’s not the art I find super interesting.

Why care what audience it’s conforming to, you’ll either enjoy the game or you won’t?

Because I think of the people who make games as artists and it pisses me off to think of some guy in a suit pressing his fingers into the Mona Lisa and pestering Da Vinci to make her smile and show cleavage so it can sell more.

I get that a business needs to make money, but those should be decisions the artists are in the room for at least.

If it’s A I don’t care, if it’s B I do.

Software As A Surprise

I have to be honest here and say I don’t understand where you’re coming from at all.

Thats okay! Thanks for asking. I’m coming from the place that video games are art.

If games are art, then I choose to support artists, even if they want to make weird or unconventional art. If an artist has a vision which clashes with my own I want them to be able to follow their vision that instead of always conforming to “general audiences”.

As to the rest of your comment I already said first thing accessibility options are good so I’m not sure what got miscomminicated there.

The problem with Ghostbusters (2016) didn’t have anything to do with having an all female cast

That’s what I just said.

If women arent the ones greenlighting these movie, directing them, or even writing the script, how could they possibly be the problem?

I listed a bunch of actually good “woke” media. They were made by a trans and black creators but if you want examples of women being funny look at Veep, the Good Place, 30 Rock, Parks and Rec, etc.

The problem as I pointed out is a predominately white male board member of business grads who feel having an all female cast is all they need to market a movie, so they can skip giving a shit about the product.

it was more about the timing of the jokes, the lack of slow quiet scenes to build atmosphere, and the effects being crappy unmemorable CGI

Because Sony can’t make a movie to save their lives. Look at Morbius, Kraven, Madame Web, etc.

There was a time in the early 00s/10s where society said “any representation is good representation”.

Movies like Black Panther and Get Out were inherently going to do well because they catered to an audience demand that had been long underrepresented.

Nowadays there are actually good movies in competition. We dont have to settle for bad representation. If you want a horror movie that’s an allegory for not transitioning you can watch it, if you want a vampire movie where the vampires are an allegory for racism and white exploitation that’s in theaters right now.

Spotting background character 1 and 2’s gay kiss in Disney’s reboot of Buzz Lightyear feels a lot less exciting to me.

When a bunch of white board members decide to make a movie “for women” and resurrect a dead IP and start forcing a script, that will be inherently more shallow than going to Amy Poehler and asking if she has an idea to pitch.

This is why Marvel succeeded in giving Ryan Coogler a higher degree of creative control for Black Panther than Sony did for any of the female cast in Ghostbusters.

While I’m enjoying diverse films like Sinners and I Saw the TV Glow, if you’re more interested in Disney’s live action remake of The Little Mermaid, or Disney’s live action remake of Snow White, go right ahead and watch it. I’m not saying you can’t.

But the idea you have to “support it” is nothing but marketing. I don’t think you’re really supporting diverse stories, I think you’re supporting corporations who exploit diversity and intentionally rage bait the worst racists imaginable for free marketing instead of investing the areas that you point out would make the movie better.

Accessibility options are good.

Agreed.

Not everyone is a god gamer with the reflexes of a 14-year old hopped up on Adderall and Red Bull. Some people just want to enjoy the story and the atmosphere of a game and it should be normal for us to let them.

Not everyone just wants to enjoy the story. Some people want a challenge which requires the reflexes of a 14 year old hopped up on Adderall.

Why should every single game be changed to suit your specific play style?

Instead of demanding their games change, maybe you could just accept its okay some audiences have different likes than you and just play the ones that cater to your style?

Imo there are two types of “wokeness”.

There is a diverse inclusive story by someone with an underrepresented experience who partially lived that story and has a unique perspective and ideas.

And then there is a “diverse” story constructed by an all white male board of execitives who think “wokeness” is trendy.

Movies like I Saw The TV Glow, Parasite, Sinners, etc are fantastic “woke” stories coming from the former group.

The latter group comes up with stories like “Ghostbusters but all women” or “Oceans 11 but all women” which I think should rightly be criticized.