There are a million and one ways to phrase everything in the English language, it's flexibility is one of its most notable features. There is literally no instruction or label that requires non gender neutral language to be in it unless you're talking explicitly about gender.

Go ahead and name a label or instruction that you think requires you to use the word he and doesn't have a gender neutral equivalent.

Didn't they fly off the handle on someone for politely pointing out that the text shouldn't use the word "he" and assume that every user is male?

That's not political, thats flat out unprofessional. I would think it's a pretty junior mistake if any of my colleagues filed a non-gender neutral PR in the first place, and would flat out fire them if they ever reacted to a review that unprofessionally.

It's not that great an analogy because the autobahn isn't still maintained by Nazis.

Saying things aren't comparable is just shorthand for saying "I've stopped thinking or considering this".

Literally everything is comparable, especially an antifascist and the person they're covering as.

Lmao bruh.

You're a weird mixture of disillusioned and naiive if you think that the narcissist, sexual abuser, traitor, convicted career criminal trying to squat in the seat of power that controls one of the most lethal nuclear arsenal's supporters were going to be swung by rational debate over ideas.

Sure, in a specific scenario where you decide they're equivalent they are, congratulations. They're not generally.

Null means I'm telling you it's null.

Omission means it's not there and I'm not telling you anything about it.

There is a world of difference between those two statements. It's the difference between telling someone you're single or just sitting there and saying nothing.

The problem with copyright has nothing to do with terms limits. Those exacerbate the problem, but the fundamental problem with copyright and IP law is that it is a system of artificial scarcity where there is no need for one.

Rather than reward creators when their information is used, we hamfistedly try and prevent others from using that information so that people have to pay them to use it sometimes.

Capitalism is flat out the wrong system for distributing digital information, because as soon as information is digitized it is effectively infinitely abundant which sends its value to $0.

You realize that half of Lemmy is tying themselves in inconsistent logical knots trying to escape the reverse conundrum?

Copying isn't stealing and never was. Our IP system that artificially restricts information has never made sense in the digital age, and yet now everyone is on here cheering copyright on.

You're describing how human beings learn and create.

Quite frankly, go outside and have someone slap you in the face and wake you the fuck up.

It's not remotely close. Biden still has an actual solid policy agenda, Trump is a senile and decrepit badger, shitting himself and scratching at everything he sees.

No, this is just cynical and mean-spirited.

It was an individual developer talking on the podcast about what he wants the game to be, there's no reason to think he doesn't feel exactly the same way you do.

If you're going to be cynical, be cynical about whether or not that messaging would make it through the layers of corporate beurocracy until it's published, not whether the individual wants to do something meaningful, most do.