Considering China's literacy rate grew from 20 percent in 1956 to 65 percent in 1982 (and now 97% in 2020 which is insane for such a highly rural country – 43% of the population, to give an idea) due to them focusing on Simplified Chinese, you're just wrong in stating it "didn't do anything". In fact, Mao got the idea from seeing Japan's success in improving literacy by simplifying Kanji into Shinjitai, so you're wrong twice...

Of course, it went hand-and-hand with the government's education reforms, it doesn't deserve all the credit. But it helped a LOT. It can be argued that it's no longer a factor because of the access to education Chinese have now, and I'd agree, but it helped when literacy was in need of improvement.

Obviously though, different characters is a small change compared to completely rewriting the sentences to simplify it, like this does here.

Yes.

No. It doesn't make a difference to the viewer that does it, obviously they seem to not care, because they do it anyway...

You just created the solution to your own confusion. Congratulations. Now consume it

Watching isn't playing. This is my whole fucking point.

Considering your argument revolved around vaguely claiming "viewing people playing single-player games is different from viewing people playing sports" which then turned into arguing it's because of the "intention" of the activities rather than the actual result, no. The only time you even actually argued about playing sports was when you acted like sports are inaccessible and then realized that wasn't gonna work out. You wanted to sound philisophical but instead you sounded stupid, congratulations again.

This statement is utter nonsense.

Considering you have no idea what you're talking about, let alone what the conversation you engaged in was about, I can see why it doesn't make sense to you.

Your most recent response has proven satisfactory. I expect your cognitive dissonance to fade shortly. Do not resist.

Proportional Instant Runoff Voting is usually just called Single Transferable Vote (STV). But there are others, the best one being Comparison of Pairs of Outcomes by the Single Transferable Vote (CPO-STV) which is STV but implementing Condorcet's method instead of IRV.

Democracy. The most functional kind. Trust me, I've tried every democracy ever and this is the one that works. I'm that guy

Yeah duh that's why it's called eSPORTS I'm not really talking about 1 genre of videogames I'm talking the medium in general so we should limit this to concepts that can be applied universally here.

So you're admitting your entire argument is "story mode games are different from competitive games". That's what you mean when you say that watching games is profoundly different from watching sports. Gotcha. And then you're pretending that competitive games/gamemodes and other non-narrative/non-art focused games are A. all one genre or only exist as e-sports and B. don't make up a large portion of the most played and most watched games.

Then, you're pretending that it actually makes a difference to the viewer as to whether or not Alien Isolation is intended to be experienced "second-hand" compared to kicking a ball with some specific time and scoring rules. Clearly the average viewer of bakery simulator streamers or horror game streamers are getting the exact same sort of engagement and experience as someone watching a match of tennis or soccer. The end result, to the viewer, pretty much the same, which makes your "point" moot. The entire point is the experience of watching the content itself. Your idea is that games "weren't designed" for it, therefore it must be an entirely different experience for the viewer. It isn't.

There is more disparity in how someone feels watching golf vs. American football than there is between someone watching American football vs. Halo Red vs Blue or Overwatch. There is more similarity between watching tennis and watching Omori than there is between watching tennis and watching Airsoft. Sports are often times more different from each other than they are from games, and games are often times more similar to sports than they are to other games. It's not complicated to grasp, really.

The fundamental difference is That you don't have to field a team, practice, meet up, etc. to play baulders gate.

You definitely do that for competitive/ranked gaming or esports (well, you obviously don't meet up in person to play ranked CS:GO but you know what I mean).

it was built from the ground up to be experienced by a person the same way you might read a book.

Conveniently, you chose a genre that is literally based off of books. Regardless, games like that aren't even played like "reading a book", they go completely differently every playthrough. I don't see the point you're trying to make here.

Watching someone else play it isn't the same as that same person watching football because a writer, or game developer doesnt write a sport. You aren't defeating the purpose of a sport when you watch someone else play it, you're just watching people participate in a framework of rules, not experience a narrative.

You aren't defeating the purpose of a game when you play it. Unless it's a visual novel or something, it's not like you're reading a book. Not only are you pretending that all games are primarily narratives with a path that it's predetermined you'll take within a short number of playthroughs, but the narratives you are talking about still don't fit your description. People aren't all the same and they play games completely differently, unless you have thousands of hours to put into literally every game you're not gonna experience every unique experience from a game like Baldur's Gate man.

You are defeating the point of the media when you watch someone else play it through YouTube or twitch.

Not at all. You're not going through a predetermined experience when you play Rainbow Six Siege (ew) or Baldur's Gate 3 any more than when you play soccer or golf. Chess is technically "predetermined" in a sense that it has a finite number of moves you can take and a finite number of possible outcomes, you can technically "solve" chess, but we're not gonna pretend like that means watching it defeats the purpose of playing chess. Watching other people use the tools the game gives them along with their own creativity is what makes both sports and games fun. I'm not going to think of everything the same as someone else; and I certainly don't want to play a few million matches of soccer until I experience every new soccer experience, so why should I be expected to do that with games? Watching someone use some advanced technique to improve their play shouldn't defeat the purpose of basketball for me, I just try to incorporate that into my play or think "oh that's neat" or something and continue playing. Watching someone do something creative or something I didn't know about in a game just improves the experience while also being entertaining.

That being said, I don't play games much nor watch games anymore, so maybe the gaming YouTubers have compromised by enjoyment of gaming. But I also don't watch or play sports anymore, nor film, so it's probably just the neccessity to have a job keeping me from using my free time on entertainment... no, I'm on Lemmy, therefore I could be gaming right now, so naturally that must mean my gamer spirit HAS been stolen by Twitch.

The comparison should be "you like movies why don't you watch movies?" But of course, the dad probably does watch movies.

Not sure what you're getting at here.

Organized? How exactly? "Organized" varies by regional law or context. If it's sponsored by a local sport union and the play is based around a set of rules, that would be organized enough for you, no? That's the assumption I operated off of.

Why does being "organized" matter in the first place? Something doesn't need to be professional league whatever for you to view it anyways. Neither sports nor video games.

Literally like everywhere. If you were American you could replace that with baseball or American football or basketball, or from somewhere else it could be cricket or rugby or something. Regardless of where you are in the world, it'd be harder to not stumble into something sports related than to avoid them. You could go to wartorn Haiti 0.0001 seconds after a hurricane and an earthquake and there'd be groups of people playing soccer on the rubble.

You can repeat it as much as you want. I'm not sure what your argument is when you say they're "fundamentally different" – in what relevant way, exactly? There is no more benefit or engagement or whatever that you get from watching people play sports compared to watching people play games. Watching someone else kick a ball around for sport, it's not exactly a unique experience from watching someone else play finger twister on their keyboard in a game. They're both literally just pixels on a screen and take the exact same processing power and thinking.

There are differences obviously, like when you watch sports it's usually because you're addicted to whatever corporate team comes from your city/state/province/country, not to watch ball go weee or admire skill or have esoteric analyses of the gameplay, but the latter reasons still exist to some extent. Vice versa for games – usually you don't watch games for the brainless esports competitive tribalism, but it's still a big part of the culture.

""Occasionally she'd cook meals(?) of fish for him and place on his heartsfoot [hearth's foot? heart's foot, figurative language for joy?] her meddery [???] eggs, sausages, and stainish [burnt/crispy] bacon on toast, and a wishy-washy cup of Greenland tea or soup-can(?) of coffee, milk and sugar, or Si-Kiang sugary [some sort of sweet tea?], or ale of ferns [herbal ale?] in trueart [skillfully crafted] pewter, and a bit of bread "??? ???" to please him and keep his stomach porky, until her (???)knees shrunk to nutmeg graters while her joints shucked [peeled] with gout; and as rash as she'd rush with her peak-load of provisions up on her sieve [???] "(???) rage, it swells and rises", my hardy Hek [Hector?], he'd cast them from him, with a stour [force] of scorn, as much as to say you sow and you sorrow, and if he didn't peg it flat on her (tail/head/heel?), believe you me, she was safe enough.""

I don't know what kind of rural Irish hell this comes out of, but some of the words don't even look English. I hated trying to decipher that and I'm sure I wasn't accurate for half of it.

Haha yeah. Soon after becoming a linguist your first realization is how little everyone else knows about or cares to know about linguistics. Btw I edited to add a little more information if you're interested.

Þorn was in use since Fuþark (Germanic runes) but wasn't used to write Anglo-Saxon until around the 8th century. It died out after the printing press came into use, usually imported from France (or Germany or something occasionally) and not using some characters found in English at the time. Because of the lack of a Þ/þ key, typers started to use "Y" as a substitute (which is why you see e.g. "ye olde" instead of "the olde"). Eventually þorn just disappeared and people used the spellings using "th". A similar thing happened to Yogh (Ȝ/ȝ), where it was substituted for by "Z" (With e.g. "MacKenȝie" yielding "MacKenzie" instead of "MacKenyie") until it disappeared and spellings using "y"/"gh" (or "j"/"ch" when appropriate) replaced spellings using "ȝ".

Ðæt (Ð/ð/đ) was mostly replaced by þorn by Middle English so it didn't get to be slain by the printing press. Wynn (Ƿ/ƿ) was replaced by "uu"/"w"/"u" by Middle English too. Ash (Æ/æ) didn't die off, in large part because it was available on many printing presses of the time due to its usage in French and Latin, but it became obsolete for English words and was mostly used to replace "ae" in loanwords (especially from Latin and Greek).

There were some other funny things in Old English & Middle English orthography; like omitting n/m and writing a macron over the preceding vowel to indicate the sound (like "cā" instead of "can"), in the same way that it occured in Latin/Latinate languages which lead to "ñ" and "ã"/"õ" in Spanish/Portuguese/Galician.