MountingSuspicion

The fact that you suggest it's a cultural issue and then state it can be rectified by organizing is exactly my point. This person is essentially shaming the individual worker for falling prey to a cultural and systemic problem.

I never said we need a socialist revolution. In this context I left system open ended, but you can't effectively organize anything with people you're hostile to and unwilling to build solidarity with. I don't think a socialist revolution is likely or even necessary, but more empathy is. The OP sentiment is not foreplay, it's outright rejection. It seems like we are actually in agreement.

Is the slave comment supposed to imply that I might be working more than I should? I'm literally saying it's a bad thing that it happens but we should be sympathetic to people who don't yet realize that and show them that they are being exploited. I don't see how this is funny, as there is no punchline or set up or anything. I don't think everyone needs to agree about comedy but I was sharing my opinion on this sentiment.

I definitely second don't start together as being the best way to play. I also heavily edit the settings so that it's not as punishing as the default. It makes the game experience feel a little more open world and less full-time grind.

Frostpunk is made by my favorite game studio and I love the genre and all their other games, but I really did not enjoy it. Some reviews mention that the scenarios have such small margins that unless you do things in a specific way, it's very unlikely you will beat them. I agree with that to a certain extent, but it feels like there's something else to it too. It's been years since I played, but the tech tree felt interesting but like it wasn't properly enmeshed with the gameplay and struggles with an obvious winning strategy that limits your feasible options.

I have a kobo as well and I I did a lot of research before selecting it. Imho it's the best on the market for my personal needs and that definitely changed how often I use it vs an alternative. Some of the things I like about it are direct integration with the library and the ability to do audiobooks. I also like that it is only an ereader and I can't play games or surf the web on it. I think knowing what's gonna help you as an individual is the most important thing. If you're more likely to take a fully fledged tablet with you somewhere because of the versatility, and would otherwise leave a plain ereader at home, then a tablet is better because if you decide to read at least you have it with you. Like a lot of tech, I think it really depends on the user.

I don't know how I overlooked possible App Store purchase increases. Good point!

That's fair, but it might also just be that they think taking a small loss on providing the watch will boost sales of the phone for people who wouldn't have gotten it otherwise, will also increase market share, and look better in reporting. If you weren't going to get a pixel watch, but one came for free and you use it, now you become a watch user for their stats. Additionally, it further entrenches you in the Google ecosystem and familiarizes you with the product so you might end up purchasing the next generation. Also, it helps normalize this product amongst your peers. Completely understandable for Google to possibly take a loss, not that they definitely are. I have no idea what the actual cost versus price looks like.

It seems like we just have a difference of opinions, so I'm happy to agree to disagree, but just so that you don't think I ghosted, I'll at least reply.

The word hate in this context was meant more in the sense of "haters", like unnecessary disparagement for the sake of disparagement, which seems in line with your use of the word ridicule.

I'm not sure what you personally would have preferred, but I do not think that this is particularly vague, given the context and the market. If someone's parent or grandparent walks into an Apple store and is confronted with the base model, and then a pro, a pro max, and a mini, I feel like they will get an overall sense of how those differ. You'll likely get people saying, well, I don't need anything too fancy, I just use it to take calls and maybe look some stuff up, so I probably don't need a pro, but I definitely don't want the mini version, so maybe I'll check out the base model, and if that is still too small, I'll check out the pro max, even though I might not need the Pro aspect, I might like the Max aspect. Mini and Max makes sense in this context as part of an overall spectrum that a layperson could understand. I guess the argument could be that they could give the screen size specifically, but then it would need a different name depending on local usage of the metric system or not. Also, a lot of people don't understand that some electronics are measured on the diagonal, so that might also be confusing. S/SE Is probably The worst bit of their naming conventions, and they worked on that.

I think it's pretty evident that the reason they did not choose pretzel rectangle was because those words are not very information dense, or relevant to the product. I feel like this is kind of proving my point?

Considering the market, I don't think that most people need the general name of the device to have every single specification included. So long as each iteration is distinct, and understandable, people who actually care about what chip is in it can find the information readily. I don't think most consumers care about a17 or M2, or bionic, or whatever else, and if anything that kind of technical jargon would be more obfuscating.

I get that this is mostly just a meme at this point, but it's really not a bad naming system. The switch from plus to max was a little weird but it kept things from being iPhone pro plus. It goes

1. Item
2. Iteration
3. Tech specs
4. size

Which is more informative than a lot of other options. Not a diehard fan or anything, but the hate for this particular issue seems overblown.

Always happy to talk about it with people in good faith!

You are partially correct in that I like it because it makes it clear I'm not het without getting into specifics, but I choose it over other similar descriptors for a few additional reasons. I know some people who identify as pansexual and though it's completely valid to identify with that, I like that queer does not solely refer to sexuality. There are plenty of aromantic pansexuals and asexual people looking for relationships. Because queer doesn't end in "sexual" I feel like it's a more wholistic view of the relationship I'm seeking and allows me to discuss it without implying any explicitly sexual feelings. I'm not aro/ace but I feel like it gives people more room in that regard. Similarly, I like that it's not as restrictive as bisexual, though bisexuals don't necessarily endorse a gender binary. I like that's it's super inclusive, but still leaves me space I feel like pansexual does not reserve for me to find gender identities or expressions that I have a preference for or against. I also like that it gives me an immediate gauge on how people feel about the community as a whole. No true ally will go "well what does that even mean?! You're all coming up with things just to confuse us" and some trans exclusive or nonbinary exclusive people will push back on it because "bisexual" should be sufficient or some nonsense like that. It allows people to ask questions if it's relevant to them or they are interested, while still giving people that don't care as much or might not be interested the general idea that I'm a member of the LGBT community and I'm open about that. I am in a long term monogamous relationship at the moment but this was all relevant when I was dating.

In a more practical sense, to me it means I'm interested in a variety of sexual and gender expressions and though I cannot definitively say I would like any and all combinations of them, I'm more than likely happy to engage if I like the person.

As someone who actively identifies as queer, I don't like to use it for the community as a whole. Adding a + at the end of LGBT or LGBTQ is generally sufficient to get the point across that you're not intentionally leaving people out, if that's a concern you have, but I don't think it's ever been a real concern in good faith conversations. I've seen people try to popularize SGM for sexual and gender minorities. I like that better as a catchall, but I think it's probably too late in the game to switch.

My experience with the trans community leads me to believe that there are some that don't like the othering nature of using the word queer for them. I can see how using a word that basically means not normal for a community that's still striving to be accepted is sometimes seen as counterproductive.