The center should be the people representing the country. There’s a lot of room in there for a diverse, varied set of perspectives. The fact that 1/3 of the country hates the two extremes and is OK with the middle is exactly why the people in the middle are the ones who are supposed to be elected.

The middle will move over time as the electorate’s value change. That’s where progress happens. The 10% who are Neo Nazis should absolutely not have anyone make it into office. That’s not what functional government is.

So, started over with Elden Ring on PS5 (completely different build and play style from my Steam playthrough) in preparation for the DLC, and a new BG3 playthrough on steam deck for breaks at work.

Then got sidetracked because someone mentioned Kingdom Come deliverance somewhere and I noticed it was $3 on PS. Hardcore mode is tough. It would be a lot less painful if I could at least have the compass point north. Navigating forests for hunting is rough. (I could probably use position of the sun? It seems like the kind of thing they’d get right. But it’s a huge pain that even finding a landmark doesn’t make reorienting myself very easy.)

That’s not a bug. It’s the entire aim of an electoral system.

The people who aren’t the extreme ends of two poles and actually have policies the majority are in favor of are the people who are supposed to be in office. I shouldn’t be choosing between “arrest people for using birth control” and “eat the rich and disband the police”.

You also don’t get progress in any direction when both parties are spending half their time unraveling everything the last group did.

You can’t prevent that.

But any system that actively enforces party lines should be automatically disqualified as a legitimate electoral system. It strengthens the power of the dumbest, least informed voters at the expense of rational voters willing to actually understand who candidates are.

Wireless as the only option is a fucking joke.

If you were to divide bundle pricing by amount of unplayed games, it’d be like 1 or 2 bucks per game.

And even that number isn’t really representative, because when I buy a bundle for one game, it’s because the bundle price is at or at least pretty near the historic low for that game. So the “extra” games aren’t really costing me anything.

One more point: a well structured law would likely lower the administrative burden on affected parties as well.

Service providers are asking because they genuinely need to know, and because medical information is pretty much the only area where there are comprehensive regulations on data protection. They could absolutely be held responsible for the negligence of allowing a known infected system to infect them. A known compromised system is known to be compromised until you’ve fully evaluated the attack vector, the scope of access, and taken steps to prevent that attack from happening again.

But because there isn’t a legally standardized mechanism to report security issues, vendors are rolling their own. Many of them would be perfectly satisfied accepting an official, standard, form, especially is there was some language that made it clear that acceptance of the form for reports was enough of a “best practice” to limit their liability if the system infected them after the fact.

You end up with the actual preference of the majority best represented. You don’t get put in a spot where you have to choose one of Trump or Clinton based on which extreme is least objectionable. You can vote for someone sane, then choose between the two extremes as your “worst case”.

It allows moderates to actually be represented instead of primaried out of the race, then scared to be in the general election because they might spoil the race for their party’s winner.

Mitigation isn’t good enough.

Any member of the body not being scrutinized by the entire relevant electorate and actually elected on the ballot is not OK.

The problem with proportional representation is that it assumes candidates are fungible.

It’s bad enough that people vote for a party over an individual, and inherently limits the element of trusting the human being that should be the deciding factor in how people vote. Systematically assigning vote to a party rather than a person is much worse.

Ranked choice. If no one has a majority, you eliminate the lowest vote getter and take the second choice of people who voted for that candidate. Repeat until there’s a majority.

I think that depends.

If he’s accurately representing the reality, he has every right to make behavior he considers unethical from an organization that takes donations known.

The letters aren’t required by any law

They should be.

If you touch any personal information in any way (let alone medical), touching any known compromised system without very clear documentation of how the compromise happened, how it was resolved, and very clear process changes to make sure it doesn’t happen again should be a massive fine per user you service, plus treble actual damages. It’s gross negligence.

Having clear documentation of an attack isn’t red tape. It’s the absolute bare minimum.

Or just have smoother no options.

What the game has done narrative wise is seriously impressive. Whatever choices you make, it feels like that’s the main, intended path (maybe except one choice with Gale, but that’s nice to have too). As fun as jumping down the throat of a fallout 4 for having dialogue choices that don’t really change anything might be, most games don’t do it (especially fully voiced, and in many cases mo-capped too) because it’s a huge investment. But with the romance specifically, some of the come ons aren’t obvious, and the only way to say no is to pretty much tell them to fuck themself. A “you’re cool, but I don’t want to bang you” would be nice.

Both.

There are absolutely a meaningful number of people who are strongly opposed to profanity, and are not OK with their phone correcting to it, a much larger number of people who only wish to use profanity in certain contexts, and specific profanities (slurs) that absolutely can do real damage with a single use.

They don’t correct away from profanity, but they don’t correct to it either. That’s a reasonable stance. The reason it doesn’t work well with the swipe keyboards is because they’re using the “correct” feature every time without biasing to the manual input, because that’s the only to get decent results out of a bad input method like swipe.

The issue is that accidental profanity (by allowing the board to correct to that language) does significant harm to their reputation and will genuinely make some meaningful portion of their userbase not use them. Regular touch screen keyboards already use invisible prediction magic to make the typing experience better, and swipe leans harder than that into their text prediction.

It’s not as easy as you’d think to train two models to both correct to profanity and completely exclude profanity.

I know nothing about this game.

The thought process this article highlights and the willingness to openly communicate it makes me want them to succeed though. “See where players are stopping and smooth it out” sounds obvious, but I don’t think it’s super common. And the acknowledgment that their demographic doesn’t match their intended audience, but they want to find a way to adapt their idea of what the game can be instead of hard-headed “my way or the highway” on stuff that’s pretty close to objectively bad game design? Again, a lot of studios won’t do that.

I’ll give him that dead spots can be clunky.

But if and only if they’re not thoughtful and predictable. When people can count frames and tell you exactly how long a move commits you for every time (with specific gear), that’s just well designed.

Google “spider trap website” or something.

Exactly.

If you can’t train using public, copyrighted material, Disney has a hell of a model and their monopoly over the entertainment industry goes from huge to insurmountable. No “little guys” gain anything. It’s regulatory capture, nothing more.