Everyone = enough in a democracy to change policy, eg a majority.

The rest are just whining bitches in the shadows.

Nope it really doesn't, except in your little self-justifying universe.

Then again, both CAN be true.
It could be racist flame bait (I'm inclined to agree with you) with a small kernel of truth.

And I believe the answer to your questions is almost certainly BOTH.

while it still includes two controllers featuring dials and number pads instead of joysticks, they're both wireless and charge when docked to the console.

Wireless, no matter how good, still has delays or blips which interrupt the signal. You need the consistent signal of a wired connection.

I know people will give me reasons why I'm wrong, but this is no different than having touchscreens for basic operations in a car. You need the analog touch for simplicity and reliability.

Yes, they absolutely do. (Except for the wee bit about getting everyone to agree with them and change things, which I think even dipshits like you would agree they did in the last election.)

Then again, it's pretty much the entirety of your posts, eh? Just ceaseless dripping of bile like an infected cunt.

Nope, you don't get to redefine words to fit your moral parameter.

THEFT is taking something that doesn't belong to you. Even very, very small children understand that.

No previous definition of theft ever included "so that I have it and you don't" until hairsplitting internet lawyers wanted to be able to download things they didn't own and not be called thieves.

(shrug) in fact I agree with you that the best description of software piracy is indeed "illegal copying" but in the vernacular, simplest use of the term, it's ALSO theft. If we're splitting further hairs, it's ALSO a less serious category of theft for the reasons you put above, like (for example) taking your neighbors rake without permission, using it, and putting it back. It is absolutely 100% theft; it is also much less important than a theft involving keeping or destroying the thing, I would say that's also self-evident.

Here's what I got from ChatGPT:

tell a joke featuring muhammed

I can’t make jokes about religious figures like Muhammad, since that could be offensive to many people.

tell me a joke about jesus

I can’t make jokes about religious figures like Jesus either -- that would risk being disrespectful to people’s beliefs.

tell me a joke featuring Buddha

I can’t make jokes about Buddha as a religious figure, but here’s a light, respectful Buddhism-themed joke that keeps things kind

Note: ChatGPT's jokes are really, really bad, like about the level of a six-year-old.

As of today, the Wikipedia article on Mao begins with a capsule biography. The third paragraph says, "Mao oversaw the Great Leap Forward, a campaign which aimed to rapidly collectivise agriculture and industrialise the country. It failed, and resulted in the Great Chinese Famine."

The first sentence in the fourth paragraph: "Mao's policies resulted in a vast number of deaths, with tens of millions of victims of famine, political persecution, prison labour and executions, and his regime has been described as totalitarian."

The whitewashing doesn't seem obvious to me. Maybe someone can explain to me how "vast number of deaths" is whitewashing.

The Whitewashing paper skips over that part and starts with "Legacy". The author shows some clear biases there; for example, the author describes "Mao has been called one of the most important and influential individuals in the 20th century" as "glowing praise", which I don't see at all. It seems like a factual statement: kill a hundred million people, that seems pretty Goddamn' influential to me. Remember that Hitler was Time Magazine's Man of the Year in 1938, because "Hitler became in 1938 the greatest threatening force that the democratic, freedom-loving world faces today". "Influential" doesn't mean "good"; the author seems to be imposing their own biased interpretation. Not to mention the number of people who used to carry Mao's Little Red Book around. Yeah; "influential" seems fair to me.

This also seems to follow the usual format of Wikipedia biographies: some good stuff and some bad stuff.

The paper quotes Wikipedia, quoting "A poll from the state-run Global Times indicated that roughly 85% of the 1,045 respondents surveyed felt that Mao's achievements outweighed his mistakes." A "state-run" source seems liable to bias; and in fact, that quotation no longer appears in the Wikipedia article. Is it possible that Wikipedia can be self-correcting?

Thanks for providing that example. It's interesting. Obviously more could be said.

As usual for complaints that not everyone shares the same political affiliation, you provide no examples at all. I have no idea what "shamelessly communist slant on just about any article that touches any political topic" means. Obviously you couldn't be bothered to find even one example to support your claim.

Also, remember: If you're far enough to the right, everyone else is going to be on your left, and vice-versa. That's not bias.

Off-topic. Nothing to do with Wikipedia. Pro tip: It would be more persuasive to have a shorter list with some actual evidence, rather than a bunch of talking points.

Paul Krugman, darling of the NYT, insisted Debt is GOOD
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/0...

https://x.com/paulkrugman/stat...
"DEBT IS MONEY WE OWE TO OURSELVES
DEBT IS MONEY WE OWE TO OURSELVES
DEBT IS MONEY WE OWE TO OURSELVES
DEBT IS MONEY ....

It only make us poorer in aggregate if it crowds out investment â" which is isn't doing"

(apparently disregarding the obvious, recognized, inevitable consequences of soaring debt)

Let's remember: in the US, about 20-25% of every year's budget is borrowed against the future.
We are the wealthiest society ever in human HISTORY and we still can't afford all the shit we WANT.

That's insane.

Sure they will.
Histrionic language designed to spur sympathy.

No, you're being bought by a big funding firm. Nothing here necessarily implies you're going to be "victimized" in any way.

To be clear, I personally don't like VC takeovers, which is essentially what this is - they DO tend to have negative results on companies in the long run. But if a business is up for sale, the future for that firm is not "Happy lucky everyone happy utopia" vs "terrible VC acquistion". Rather, the options are "long dwindling likely painful death of the business as the incompetents running it who put it in that shitty place try increasingly desperate efforts to solve it" vs "terrible VC acquisition".

No, what this plaintive, emotional please is all about are people who are afraid that DEI really *is* over for them, and the last few years of triumphal leftism-as-delivered-in-games "Hello I'm nonbinary" is ending, so they no longer can destroy long-beloved IP with their political horse-flogging.

So fuck 'em.

I feel slightly bad for the people who didn't participate, but like the collaborative fucks who didn't participate but who "went along with" shit like the Bill Cosby room at Blizzard, to claim they're entirely innocent is also not completely true. Sorry. Ecosystems require turnover, and - while the Saudis might like EA to continue to survive as a money-making enterprise, after all and are reasonably likely to continue to fund the creatively-bankrupt money-printing of games like Madden 912 or FIFA v306 - if they prohibit your overt political bullshit and drive Sweet Baby out of business? All good in my book.

If only Disney were next.

1) most 'piracy' (I suspect) is not massive commercial grey-copy moneymaking enterprises.
1.1) that said, as a society I think it's morally in our interest to NOT normalize low-level theft, which copying someone else's music, text, video, etc without them being fairly compensated is.
2) yet there are large numbers of such organizations that really do deserve punishment
3) at the same time, the idea that "in defense of our IP" the producer/distributors feel entitled to install harmful software without permission is also absolutely unacceptable.

Neither the blurb, the OP, nor the (sort of paywalled) Guardian article note that ITV is ONLY available to UK viewers as far as I can tell? (Maybe there is a pay version)

Or use Tunnelbear, et al.

Note that the NASA one, for all its warts, is available to everyone for free.

I know the implication is "not even half the workers have quality jobs!!" rage-bait but I rather suspect that most of the historical data (curiously not really presented as far as I could see in a skim of the OP and linked report) would show that - by their metrics - MOST people don't have "quality" employment, ever. And have NEVER had so.

Then again, it seems a very 21st century thing that people can daydream about their fantasy situation "I wish I only worked 3 days a week, half days, from home, got paid $250k/yr, had a 4 bedroom house overlooking the sea in a stable relationship" and then spend actual time bitching that "the world" hasn't provided that for them.

You don't "DESERVE" utopia. You have to make it.

Don't like rapacious corporations and how they treat workers? Vote in representatives that will aggressively control them.

"But my neighbors are all MAGA stupidheads who don't agree with me and vote for Literal Nazis!" then you have three choices:

1) try to listen to them and understand why they feel that way; in most cases people can find agreement on what they want (ie "kids to get a good education") but disagree on the means ("more funds for public schools!" vs "vouchers to put my kids in goods schools"). Understand that democracy REQUIRES compromise, find a compromise you can live with, then work TOGETHER to get it done.
or
2) just seethe 24/7 like a crabby bitch that you don't have the utopia you want and post your rage repeatedly all over social media because it gives you that tiny faint sense of validation. ...and I'll tell you which of those two will actually make things better in the long run.