blind3rdeye

I reckon this is a really good game, and it's great to see it on GOG.

Missing features always feels bad though, even if those features are not important. (The multiplayer modes are ok, but the playerbase isn't there anymore anyway. I never used snapmap at all.) But it's kind of a philosophical thing. Missing features just make it feel like a worse. But on the other hand GOG does have one cool feature compared to the previous release: DRM free. Not as visible, but perhaps more important.

(I still probably won't buy it on GOG though, because I don't love the game so much that I need a second copy.)

People don't usually interact with a hammer by talking to it. They interact by holding it, placing it, hammering with it. Respect for a hammer (or similar tool) would be based around those kinds of actions.

Whereas people do interact with a chatbot by talking to it. So then respect for a chatbot would be built around what is said.

People can show respect for a hammer, a house, a dinner prepared by their spouse, their spouse, a chatbot, etc.. but respect for each of those things will look a bit different.

Well sure, answering the queries continues to cost the company money regardless of what subscription the user has. The company would definitely make more money if the users paid for subscription and then made zero queries.

I didn't get technical on you - that's kind of the point. But whatever; I was just trying to help with some context. Ignore if you like.

Look man, from a technical language point of view there is nothing whatsoever wrong with calling people 'females'. However, by speaking to such people face-to-face you quickly learn that basically not one likes to be called that. The reasons are subtle, and frankly not very important. But the fact remains that calling people 'females' is now seen as a sign that you don't understand or respect them - on the grounds that you are using a phrase that you've been asked not to use. Just say 'women' instead.

That's true on face value. The issue is that accusations of misandry are almost always unfounded, and only made as a way to deflect and to attack women. So when people start talking about misandry, that's generally a red flag.

It's similar to how "all lives matter" is definitely a true and good value - but yet it is almost always said as a way to divert support away from vulnerable groups. So although the literal meaning is good, it is fair to assume that people saying it do not have good intentions.

It's pretty harsh to just casually suggest that a person be a TERF without any specific evidence.

Sure. I agree that's the problem; and none of these analogies really help make that any easier to understanding. Certainly they don't have a "murder as much as you like" policy! (I find that analogies are rarely useful - except for manipulating how you want people to feel.)

Perhaps murder is a bit extreme. It's more like "we've noticed you're taking woodchips from the playground. That's not allowed. We wouldn't mind if you were just taking a few chips, but you've taken 2 tons."

[edit] But putting analogies aside, the service really should make rules and restrictions like this clear in advance. That seems like the real failing here, rather than the rule itself.

Have you read A City On Mars? It has quite a detailed look at many of the challenges. You've pointed to some research relevant to the possible availability of water - which is great, but I think it would be better to say "a major constraint" rather than "the major constraint."

I don't know what you mean by favouritism. The reasoning for the phone ban goes something like this:

1. Teachers and education researchers have agreed that children are less productive in school due to mobile phones.
2. But preventing children from using their phones in school creates significant additional workload, due to conflicts and arguments.
3. Various governments have recognised this, and have created a law which can remove the phones without the workload.

If you're talking again about the fact that teachers are allowed phones but students are not, then I'm disappointed. I've put in quite a bit of good faith effort into talking about this stuff. At the start of our conversation I felt that I was answering genuine questions, and perhaps helping clarify why someone might want a law like this. But now I'm starting to feel like that was entirely wasted, because you never wanted to think about it anyway - you only wanted to fight it. That's how I'm starting to feel. Maybe I'm wrong, but this 'how does the law prevent favoritism' seems like a totally bullshit line to reasoning to me.

Different laws and rules target different groups of people for different reasons. There's a huge list of rules and responsibilities that apply exclusively to teachers and not other professions. And there's a heap of rules that apply to children and not adults. There can be different rules for different reasons. As for phone usage, I'd personally be totally fine if all smart phones were phased out for everyone for all purposes across the entire world. But I do think it's a false equivalence to say that if phones are banned for students they should also be banned for everyone else. It a totally separate argument. And note: I'm not introducing this law. I didn't ask for it. I didn't design it. I don't even live in the country that the article is from. I'm only try to outline what I understand to be the motivation. If you think something negative is going to result from this law, you should try to outline what that is. What-aboutisms are not helpful.

The primary purpose of making it a government policy is to defuse the endless arguments and pushback that schools were fighting to stop students using phones.

If the rule is a case-by-case thing implemented by individual classroom teachers, it doesn't work at all - because students will quickly see and exploit differences in how the rule is enforced by different teachers. It means the phones still get used, and any attempt to remove that distraction becomes a massive battle of "why are you targeting me. That other student is allowed to use theirs. The other teachers don't mind." etc etc.

Having a clear school-wide policy mostly fixes that; but it still gets a very similar effect from the parents. "I give my child permission, because they need it for such-and-such reason". It can be dealt with, but it is genuinely a large burden on the school. But having a clear government policy removes that battle for the school. The answer is always clear "it's a government policy, it is not our decision to make". (By the way, there are still some exemptions for medial reasons; but again, there are no case-by-case arguments, because the policy is the same for all schools.)

So in short its about consistency; to reduce conflict between teachers and students, and between schools and parents.