Lowbird

It does tell you that it's been changed, though. You can typically still go and play the original game. And it enables the people affected by -isms to enjoy it when sometimes said -isms would pull them out of it for them otherwise.

And it's not like the original intent was for people to be distracted by what would have, to the developers, have likely seemed a small or unquestioned detail. We can never truly approach a game the way its original audience did anyway because culture changes so much, and a large part the experience you have with art is what you bring to it. Thus why graphical updates can make the game look like you remember it, even though it now looks much prettier. I think these sorts of updates can be similar to that.

Granted, it's harder to access the original game because of hardware. But even so, a lot of original intent is always lost in the process of making a remaster. I'd argue "for modern audience" updates tend to be less of a departure than changes in visual design (the different lighting in the various Myst remasters that changes the mood, the extra foliage in Shadow of the Colossus remasters) or mechanics updates (the ability to control Resident Evil like a regular game instead of via tank controls).

Edit: I think my ideal scenario would be if remasters include "modern audience" updates of all kinds, to make the game as enjoyable for new players as possible, but also that the originals be made more easily available such as by legalizing or sanctioning emulation for old games.

Georgia didn't flip because of the "might vote Republic or might vote Democrate" swing voters people usually talk about; it flipped because of hoards of people who don't normally turn out at all finally were approached and motivated to do so. Another kind of swing voter, between "might not vote of all, or might vote Democrate."

Pundits make much of the first group because they always have, and because politicians insist on putting that group front and center in their priorities, but I think they become less and less of a genuinely powerful block as the two major parties get farther and farther apart. Who is even left in the middle, anymore? Never Trumpers, who won't vote for Trump anyway?

Meanwhile, Biden's unconditional aid for Israel's genocide is alienting Arab Americans, who have a lot of voting power in some key states, as well as a large (though I can't say exactly how large) portion of young, Black, and Latin American voters who can see the obvious racism at play.

I think he's made a political bet here to appeal to the people the DNC always tries to appeal to at the cost of other groups, but I genuinely think he may lose because of it, especially if Trump ends up sidelined and replaced with another Republican.

Then again, maybe pushing the abortion rights thing will make enough of a difference to counteract this. I don't know. But I hate that I feel like this election could easily go either way.

I don't think you can become a billionaire in an ethical way, without exploiting hundreds or thousands of people below you.

To me, the "good" billionaires participate in and create the system that keeps everyone else poor and without resources just as much; it's just that they throw a few coins back to charity - what looks like a lot to us, but isn't much to them - to a) make themselves look good and charitable or b) assuage any guilt they feel for their continually exploitation of workers and hoarding of wealth. Like a king gathering so many taxes all the peasants are destitute, then tossing some gold coins into a crowd and getting called generous for it even though it's a pittance compared to what they took. There is no more powerful PR for a billionaire, no better way to steer public and media opinion, than strategically giving their money to charity.

They maybe aren't intentionally evil, but if a bit of charity makes people praise them, and makes them feel like they're using their wealth for the greater good, such that they can feel like they're good people and sleep at night, I think they conveniently fail to think through whether the "good" they do by handing out their wealth outweighs the harm they caused by taking such an outsized share - one much larger than they ever give back - in the first place, because anyone would be extremely motivated to come to the conclusion that it's ethical to keep being an mega-powerful billionaire.

If they didn't exploit workers and hoard so much wealth in the first place, their "charity" wouldn't be needed because all that wealth would be much better distributed to begin with, and it would be distributed more equitably rather than on the basis of whoever most appeals to an individual billionaire's whims at a given moment. As it is, they're like middlemen between workers and the causes that need funds, and in being so they are able to wield ridiculously outsized political power (via donations, being treated as important enough to talk to politicians, market manipulation, etc), and they will always oppose any measure that truly threatens their continued power and wealth.

Also they rely on our current capitalist system that requires the line to go up forever, with companies expected to make more and more money year after year (often by taking more and more from their workers), with no answer to where or when the line can stop going up, which is an incredibly stupid strategy on a planet with finite resources and a global warming problem.

Maybe one day all the human Alexas can have their name back. That would be nice.

Or they're working class or buried in medical bills and can't afford to be spending money on things like search engines that have a free alternative, even if it is worse.

I'm not actually convinced the alternatives are any better here, anyway.

It bothers me that they all look like they're in their teens or 20s, when a male wizard would inevitbly be shown as anywhere from middle aged to Gandalf.

I bet it just always makes women young in every context.

Anyway most of them look like they're from an old 3D Japanese RPG or CG anime. Round face with pointy chin, plastic-y smooth skin.

I'll note that anime and Asian RPG characters often have a light skin tone (another can of worms there) that can cause foreign viewers to perceive them as white even while Japanese viewers perceive them as asian. Animation and similarly stylized art involves a level of abstraction and cultural interpretation that might not be there (at least not in exactly the same way) if we were talking about race (or gender, or whatever else) with regards to more realistic art.

Edit: this also reminds me of Disney's notorious "same face, same profile" problem with female characters in their 3D animated films. Male characters can be any of a wild variety of shapes, but a Disney princess essentially round faced with huge eyes and slim. Even just looking at different slim, round-ish faced male characters, I think you'll find more variety in their portrayals within that group than amongst the Disney princess group.

Aljazeera reliably reports on world news that gets totally ignored by other outlets, is the thing. I haven't read up on Qatar's policy's otherwise, and I do notice that aljazeera never seems point fingers at Qatar's own issues, but I've generally been very glad it exists.

Do you have an alternative that's equally good for breadth and depth of world news, but in your view less biased?

Edit: I'll note also that aljazeera does post no shortage of negative articles about the actions of, and human rights abuses by, Hamas, too. They're just not getting shared here on beehaw, since Israel's actions are rather more attention grabbing at the moment. I've never seen them post any stories or opinion pieces praising Hamas, either.

For those interested in this topic, I recommend PhilosophyTube's videos, particularly this one: I Emailed My Doctor 133 Times: The Crisis In the British Healthcare System

Also... What the heck is a bioethicist? That sounds like maybe someone involved in advising corporations on ethics, not someone I'd ever expect to see involved in private medical care. Regular doctors and nurses and etc are already required to study and practice ethical medicine.

I'd also like the point out that one can go get their tongue cut in half, or their leg bones lengthened, or get hormone treatment for balding or for menopause, or get a nose job, or surgery to make their boobs bigger or smaller, all without anything like what trans people are forced to go through for the most basic of things.

Even for someone who believes that the gender assigned at birth is the "real" one, or who dislikes or feels weirded out by trans people in general, I don't see how one could justify imposing so many more restrictions on one group of people who want or need to modify their bodies than are imposed on any other group that seeks similar medical care.

Even if we do just talk about children, the disparity doesn't make sense. Like, hormone blockers like those prescribed to trans children have been routinely and safely prescribed to cis children, in cases such as to delay early onset puberty (which, iirc but correct me if I'm wrong, is mostly only an issue because of the social consequences surrounding it), for decades. And in many of the new wave of anti-trans bills that ban hormone blockers to delay puberty for trans children, they specifically leave a cut out for cis children to still receive hormone blockers without issue. Because they don't really believe delaying puberty is unsafe, that's never been the point.

And that's not even getting into comparisons with other major medical decisions made by parents and doctors, sometimes even without the consent of the children (let alone the vehemently expressed wish for treatment like trans children), like circumcision, or weight loss treatments or surgeries, or other cosmetic treatments, or even the forced surgeries and hormone treatments that have been routinely done on intersex children (largely the same treatments as a trans person would seek, but forced, to make a person look unambiguously like whichever sex the parents choose for them). If the people pushing these anti-trans bills really cared about children and parents and doctors making medical decisions with big consequences and risking regret, they should be talking about a whole lot of other things - things much less stringently regulated - besides trans healthcare. But nope, crickets.

This is a really good article, and I like that they made their data public and put a link to it right in the article.

Also, I knew it was bad, but looking at these numbers it's even worse than I thought. I recommend reading this one.

Like, this part:

Asymmetry in how children are covered is qualitative as well as quantitative. On October 13, the Los Angeles Times ran an Associated Press report Opens in a new tabthat said, “The Gaza Health Ministry said Friday that 1,799 people have been killed in the territory, including more than 580 under the age of 18 and 351 women. Hamas’s assault last Saturday killed more than 1,300 people in Israel, including women, children and young music festivalgoers.” Notice that young Israelis are referred to as children while young Palestinians are described as people under 18.

During discussions around the prisoner exchanges, this frequent refusal to refer to Palestinians as children was even more stark, with the New York Times referring in one case to “Israeli women and children” being exchanged for “Palestinian women and minors.” (Palestinian children are referred to as “children” later in the report, when summarizing a human rights groups’ findings.)

A Washington Post report from November 21 announcing the truce deal erased Palestinian women and children altogether: “President Biden said in a statement Tuesday night that a deal to release 50 women and children held hostage by Hamas in Gaza, in exchange for 150 Palestinian prisoners detained by Israel.” The brief did not mention Palestinian women and children at all.

That is so fucked up. And there are a bunch of other examples like it re. the disparity in the language these newspapers use.

Tangentially, and though this is a whole can of worms and rather beside the point we should be focusing on at the moment: I am also disturbed that it's apparently still common practice to bundle women together with children like this - if they just mean "noncombatants" or "caregivers" then they should say that, just saying "women and children" like this demeans female combatants and male caregivers alike. I can sort of understand an argument for it in certain contexts where women are subjugated and denied a lot of rights, but this language is used regardless of social contexts.

I think there are ways to impose child safety locks, as it were, on a phone's access to the internet? Like a curfew or "max hours in a day" limit. I feel like that would make more sense than not giving a kid a phone.

And there are also tricks one can apply to circunvent some of that attention-grabby design, like putting the phone in grayscale mode.

Also, unlike cigarettes, smartphones serve many purposes, and 99.999% of people (in countries where they are ubiquitous) will need to own one at some point. I think it may be better to actively teach a child how to handle the information-overload, attention grabbing tricks, misinformation, and so on of the internet, rather than leaving them to just figure it out for themselves later on.

My concerns with denying children a smartphone altogether include:

• Phones are an essential safety device, and smartphones are better at this than dumb phones because of things like GPS and maps navigation (especially for kids who get lost easily), clear emergency alerts (e.g. "expect a tsubami in 3 minutes", or "there is an active shooter currently around the grocery store at x and y street"), the ability to store easily accessible information for first responders in the phone (which can sometimes also be auto-shared when you make a 911 call), and the ability to easily and silently text 911 if they find themselves in a situation where calling is dangerous.

• Phones and social media are now an integral part of most kids' social lives. If a kid doesn't have a smartphone and can't join in on real time group chats, with the ability to see the things their peers share in that chat, or if they don't have video chat access, they'll be cut off from a lot of other kids and their social life will suffer for it.

And access to social media is especially important for kids who need to find support they can't find easily irl, like for queer or neurodivergent kids who benefit from talking to others like them on the internet - even if they're lucky and their parents are supportive, it's not the same as finding a peer support group. For similar reasons, access to digital library collections can be a big deal. Granted, some of this would be covered if they have access to the internet on a laptop or desktop, but at that point they'd have internet access anyway so they might as well have the phone too.

• Phones are more and more often required for basic utilitarian access, too. Sometimes taking the city bus requires a phone because you can't pay cash anymore. Sometimes the laundry machine doesn't take coins, only app or internet payment. Sometimes the menu at a restaurant is just a QR code that tells you to look at their website. It sucks but it's only getting more this way.

I'm not advocating for giving smartphones to literal toddlers, but beyond a certain (fairly low) age I think at this point the risks of giving a kid a smartphone are outweighed by the risks of them not having one.

Well that right there is a real bad photoshop job.

Weird. You don't have any potentially problematic extensions installed?

You could also try Firefox Nightly, though I suspect it may not be better for you if the regular one is broken.