At this point in time, Chrome was jumping bounds ahead of the others with standards, and most websites were specifically written for webkit, even beginning to disregard Firefox. Worse, Chrome was often going back and forth on how a certain new standard should implement, leading to, for instance, CSS files declaring 7 or 8 different ways of doing a linear-gradient.

Your sentiment on Microsoft isn’t unique, which is part of why the web consortium wasn’t actually keen on listening to them most of the time. Them having monetary/OS influence didn’t actually lead to a lot on the W3C - they went ahead of them for most ActiveX work.

To a performer: “Every time you perform is better than the next.”

To anyone: “I find you argumentative and easily offended.”

Best part of an insult is heading off the retort.

I wish these media tourists took to simple messaging like Indie’s “I punch Nazis”.

As a web dev, I feel awkward reminiscing about the thin period of web history when IE was a solidly built, standards-compliant browser.

It was like the IE team saw their history was causing them to lose all market share, and committed to fixing misdeeds since they held an underdog position. But for most, it was too little too late.

For several years, I tested in IE, not Chrome, because it was most strictly standards-compliant, and I could be sure that if it worked there, it would work in other browsers. (Now, if you use Edge, it’s just a repaint of Chrome)

I don’t necessarily think them withdrawing and going offline is strong proof that accusations against them are true. Sometimes people do socially withdraw when they think they’re being witch-hunted.

That’s not necessarily saying the accusations of AI were false, either. I only saw them briefly and am not great at picking out AI indicators. Just warning that we sometimes self-select signs of resistance as “My hypothesis is correct!”

This just goes to show how ignorant some fans are! They use OWLS, not parrots! Some people! /s

I’m male and straight, but even I will admit I like having good men in stories for the character dynamics - seeing how they react to particular women, or providing a contrast, etc.

Maybe it’s just me in that I can’t think of any genre where I’m always completely okay with throwing out story.

I’m not making a specific defense to Ubisoft, but I do get ticked by the generalized claim “The artist already got paid”, which is what I started to reply to. In many cases, it’s a disingenuous and misleading way to excuse piracy.

Trails in the Sky turned this meme into a weapon. (/minorspoilers)

“Use the middle stick to dodge the Joker’s bullet”

Are you prepared to assert and prove that every single company over a certain revenue is exactly the same?

I’ve come into conversations with preconceived “large company slop” feelings towards a large brand, only for a person there to remark “My brother works for that company. He says they get great benefits, and are generally treated very well.”

Sometimes the bullshit is only on the consumer side, in which case it only makes sense to avoid them because you’re getting a bad product. If you insist the product is bad, and that you’re stealing the bad product that you somehow want, in order to support the mistreated employees, who are actually being treated okay, then maybe it turns out there’s not much logic behind the protest action of pirating?

I’ve seen pirates use the same generic excuse for midsize indie publishers that have no such reason to be hated - so it’s disappointing to see people don’t actually think those things through.

Back then, I was wondering when it would stop being “too soon”.

I will admit though, that years ago I laughed unendingly at a YTP clip of My Little Pony showing Rainbow Dash happily doing a loop-dee-loop into the east tower.

Hearing this quirky description makes me think Picard Maneuver is shilling against mail-in voting, given the timing.

I find he’s dramatizing the dichotomy, but I always found this arranged argument lacking.

Imagine you have a budding farmhand, a hard-working local, in mind when you go to the local farmers’ market to “support local farms”. But that’s wrong, isn’t it? Because the farm owner pays that hand a static salary. Their exact success or revenue off one extra bag of apples isn’t going into that hand’s pocket.

But it’s also related; that farmhand has better job stability, more chance of a bonus, less pressure to advertise well, if the farm is making a comfortable salary.

Now, the one part I’ll admit is this logic doesn’t work as well in corporate atmospheres; where CEOs fire as many people as possible, reward no one for good performance, and would rather fudge numbers than sell a good product.

But I’d also wager a lot of commenters shortcutting their logic to “company bad, pirate games” aren’t always taking a critical investigative eye to how companies treat their people. After all, “I get free game” is a strong motivator to believe a certain way.

In other news, Microsoft Japan sold its first Xbox.

I’m not great at Linux, did programming for most of my life in Windows, but so far I’ve gotten by for about a year in CachyOS (uses Arch). Having it work so well in gaming has been a strong motivator.

“Hey, I tried the recommended GUI package manager and everything got messed up. Is anyone looking into this?”
“lol just use pacman -Syu in terminal”
“…k, guess I will, but I’m not about to recommend this to anyone else”

There’s a thousand criticisms of US politics I agree with, that make sense; but the one thing that has never made sense to me is why the Republican Party exists.

It’s a horrendous monster with no visible redeeming values. The Democrats can live off “We will fight the monster!” and be opportunistic scumbags, but no explanation given for why that monster exists.

As long as even some of the democrats build up a platform of fighting that monster, and have to pretend to do it, then it’s better than those monsters actually being in charge. I’m not a fan of handwaving the “hard fact” that group still continues to exist as a pure enemy of American success through today’s age, and it turns almost anything else into a lesser evil.

One of the reasons horror is celebrated is because it’s art imitating life. Often, it makes people feel uncomfortable, and the way they express that fear is worrying life will imitate art.

Sadly, it probably has happened before, but never without a long basis of hatred and mental health issues. The bigger question to me is how many people would like to see less of horror tropes, to the point that we don’t see violence against women on screen - but the rate of it in our alleyways remains unchanged.

We can think of it a bit like Childish Gambino in “This is America” taking a gun from his pants, shooting a bound prisoner, and then gently putting the gun on a pad. It’s not supposed to feel cool. It’s supposed to make you feel uncomfortable because it reflects something we don’t like to talk about. To me, making casual jokes surrounding fictional killers isn’t going much further.

And, even more murky is that that genre is often very popular with women. They have a fascination with the dangers that are sometimes a real possibility to them, especially when they can be expressed in an over-the-top way safely behind a screen.