rwhitisissle

The sad thing is that a Cyberpunk dystopia is nominally interesting. Violent, terrible, and impoverished, yes, but also fastpaced and exciting. Our world is dull, programmatic, largely predictable, and extremely boring unless you have disposable income. We all have cellphones, yes, but that doesn't make it cyberpunk.

The fact that the OP has a Danny Phantom profile picture adds a little something something to this.

How is this a meme? It just looks like a movie poster or album cover.

This is a genuinely awful set of takes.

Yeah but it’s typical to spew negativity without having any solution

Here's a solution: wholesale reject capitalism as an economic system.

You really prefer amazon’s meat grinder policies?

Because that's literally the only two options here: Valve's way of doing things and Amazon's. Really? Try again.

No Corp has ever been good we can still hope and try

I think you misspelled cope and cry.

Valve has been compared to Lord of the Flies because of its corporate structure by multiple people who worked for them. The company has an internal ranking system that determines compensation. It's also one of the least diverse workplaces in its industry, being overwhelmingly white and male.

https://www.pcgamer.com/valves-unusual-corporate-structure-causes-its-problems-report-suggests/

https://www.pcgamer.com/ex-valve-employee-describes-ruthless-industry-politics/

So, while I'm glad that Gabe was nice to one of his direct reports, the reality is that the president of the company being nice to one specific person doesn't make the company good or ethically ran.

True then; true now. People who asskiss Valve (and Gaben by extension) are victims of years of effective marketing. Valve is as greedy and duplicitous as any other corporation. You're just looking at it through rose colored glasses because it's the primary mechanism by which you access your hobby.

This tweet is actually a fantastic learning tool in the context of formal argumentation. One of the best ways of refuting a clearly dubious argument is analyzing and rejecting its foundational premises. The foundational premise of this person's conjecture about Twitter's worth is that each Tweet is worth a dollar. Except, he has no evidence to come close to supporting that, and the immaterial nature of a tweet combined with the sheer insane volume of them likely suggests the opposite: the average tweet is almost certainly far closer to being completely worthless. Some might be worth a lot, such as a tweet made by a famous person, but that's contextual to advertising costs and user volume.

Elon had gotten away with blatant market manipulation so much he made the ultimate mistake: buying into his own bullshit. I'm absolutely convinced he didn't want to buy Twitter. He wanted to pump and dump. People think there's about to be a buyout so the price goes up in anticipation. He then shorts the stock with the plan of very publicly backing out of the deal and walks away with a couple hundred million. But for the first time ever he goes just too damn far and winds up in a scenario where he can be legally compelled to purchase the company. Now he's forced to eat shit and is saddled with what I can only imagine is the corporate equivalent of a pig in a poke.

Intelligent design is a broad, vague, and intensely mutable concept. It isn't helped by the fact that there's multiple kinds, with the pseudoscientific kind touted by the religious right in America and the more generic, very fucking old "teleological argument" which is also intelligent design at its core. To give a specific example of intelligent design philosophy that isn't directly tied to a belief in a deity as an active participant, you can look at the deists, who believed that the universe's fundamental laws were engineered by a kind of "clock maker" deity who left the universe running under its own principles but doesn't have a direct, guiding hand in individual events. This is still a form of "intelligent design" and closely corresponds to simulation theory. At this point, you are redefining terms to suite your argument. Also, you can't really say the world is or is not intelligently designed, as you have no evidence for either. The only truly "logical" position to hold for any of this is straight agnosticism.

This argument conflates belief with religious practice. The core similarity of both beliefs is that the universe is intelligently designed. And you can believe in the idea of a God without participating in any kind of formal religious practice. That "most" religious belief is wrapped up in a particular religious tradition is ancillary.

If you run Ubuntu on a production server, you better having snapd disabled.