Senal

Even when learning to play a instrument you get feedback. When you twang the strings with your inexpert fingers and make a sound. That’s a huge source of guidance.

Ah, so you meant feedback.

Agreed.

I don't think we're actually disagreeing, i think i just misunderstood what you meant.

I do know from personal experience, anecdotal as it may be, that there are situations where certain feedback isn't registered properly, or at all.

This example is fully contrived, but I'm going somewhere after so bear with me.

Take the example of the gym and that the feedback is the muscle soreness experienced after, what happens if that person doesn't feel pain ( again, i know it's contrived ). The effect would still be there but the feedback wouldn't be registered.

I know pain isn't the only feedback here I'm using this specific example as reference.

So meditation is a good example here, especially for the neurodivergent.

Let's take the semi-common comorbidity of Alexithymia.

Not being able to recognise or properly associate the emotional feedback of whatever method of meditation you are practicing does somewhat limit the understanding of the process/benefits.

But, and this is key, it doesn't actually inhibit all of the effects of the meditation.

There is ofc a cognitive aspect to using the feedback to guide what you are doing, but it's not a hard requirement.

Think of it like emotional exercise where at some point your mind just buckles under strain it didn't know was there and up until that point nothing was feeling any different.

It can be deeply unpleasant and even harmful, but it can also be a benefit if handled in a useful way.

I'm not saying it's common, but i'd imagine its more likely than you think.

Hmm , i was working with the assumption you meant tangible results/benefits, seems i was incorrect and i retract my statement partially.

I will however die on the hill that not everything has immediate (or immediately noticeable to be more accurate) effects.

Learning to play an instrument doesn't always result in an immediate increase in ability, same with martial arts (the skill portion, not the physical/exercise portion).

If you limit yourself to only the things that have immediately noticeable effects then you are excluding potential paths for growth.

That's like saying that if you don't walk out of the gym bursting out of your shirt you should stop lifting weights.

Not everything is immediate.

"I would like to increase my visibility for "branding" purposes so i'm going to say something that is probably reasonable but i'm going to do it in a misrepresented absolutist way, purposely ignoring any nuance, so as to be as divisive as possible to get those sweet sweet clicks."

It's the linked-in way.

Absolutely agree with this but there is no denying the innovation levels at spacex are higher

Undeniably, they've been doing amazing work (at least from my rocketry technology peasant point of view).

They landed people on the moon and then did fuck all for decades.

Indeed, all i was saying is that they were capable given budget and circumstances.

That budget and direction comes from the government.

When Musk started SpaceX he was not well known yet, SpaceX came before Tesla.

I will admit, i thought spacex was just another company he bought his way in to, like tesla, seems i was mistaken about that.

He was able to get into the businesses he has because he was rich yes, but you can find many accounts of engineers that worked under him speak of how good he was at finding ways to cut unnecessary costs.

And you can equally find many accounts of having to distract him from the day to day operations because he's unreliable , unpredictable and chaotic (none of those meant in a good way).

He's also known for buying good press and using litigation to silence people.

He’s not a technical genius that’s for sure. But he has been a good CEO for SpaceX.

I doubt this, but that could just be bias, i don't have any actual evidence of the long term impact of him as CEO.

Recently though, he's provably been significantly more of a liability than a benefit, even if just from a PR and public sentiment point of view.

But I refuse to simply wave away his achievements simply because I don’t like him. I can not like someone and still acknowledge they have done something good.

Indeed, i push back on the myth that he's some self made tony stark genius, but it isn't like he's not achieved anything.

I would personally attribute most of that to neptoism, wealth, luck and opportunity, but that doesn't remove the achievement itself.

You mean the NASA who landed people on the moon?

So let's assume you aren't a moon landing denier and use that as a baseline, NASA is clearly capable of things given the right circumstances and budget.

SpaceX benefited from his reputation and money, because they sure as shit didn't benefit from his technical acumen.

Business wise he is successful because he's rich and influential and that works to mitigate how shitty he is at actually running an organisation, that doesn't mean he has skills as a business person that means he has money and influence, in his case originally from the mine, then from buying and bullying his was in to businesses that were technologically sound and boosting them with his money.

You could make an argument he's a relatively good investor, but he's an actively bad CEO.

They could stir up interest by actually finishing the first game.

There are supposed to be 5 story episodes, i think the last released episode (4) was three years ago.

Since then they've released a full DLC and are close to releasing the second game from what i can tell.

I'm not bitter or anything, i haven't got past the second episode yet, so this makes zero difference to me personally.

In fairness is was full jank on release, the initial patches got it to "bethesda jank" where it was fun with the bugs (provided you could actually play it) but still bug ridden.

It got better over time, until just before the "big patch" came in that fully changed how it all worked skills and mechanics wise (gameplay was mostly the same).

Honestly i prefer, pre-"big patch" but the fully patched game is considerably smoother and more coherent.

So, aside from the years of post release development, completely missing features that are never actually coming (looking at you full transit system), it's actually pretty good.

An absolutely dogshit way of releasing a game, but if you waited for a few years and bought it on discount , it's actually a really fun game (provided you like that sort of thing).

TBC I'm not justifying anything about this process , it was a major fuckup and many other dev houses would have gone under from the weight of how badly they fucked it up, but they had that witcher money, so.

Sounds like you have an idea of what it means to you and are trying to foist that upon others.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

I don't exactly disagree, but i think my stance is that the money is the reason and the morals/ethics are a byproduct of having to do what it takes to get that money, in certain markets.

Sure, enough pressure from the ad execs would bring about change, probably.

I just wanted to point out that they aren't working with a moral or ethical baseline, only money.