Good stuff. Important for people who want to play the game but don’t want to give money to Bethesda and, by extension, their genocide-complicit parent company, Microsoft.

Not a term, but a lack thereof:

People I have to regularly interact with for work have been excluding “to be”, especially with “needs”, and it’s infuriating.

This issue needs escalated. That report needs fleshed out. Let me know if anything needs cleared up.

Like I’m lying in the backseat of my parents’ car in the 90s watching the powerlines and the clouds languidly roll by.

Nope; you read an article, and I just reacted to comments on Lemmy, assuming that those commenting had read the article.

If I’d simply opened the link, I’d’ve seen it was on mozilla.org and would’ve realized it was just that the OP made a shitty clickbait title, not another Mozilla hit piece.

Shame on you, OP! Also shame on me.

Yet another Mozilla hit piece that seemingly-intentionally misrepresents the good they’re doing for users.

It begs the question: who has the means and motivation to consistently pay “journalists” to malign the only browser that has the slightest chance of tearing any significant amount of users away from chromium-based browsers?

EDIT: Turns out the answer to my question above might, in fact, be OP! They wrote a patently false, inflammatory title that isn’t supported by the article (or reality) at all, and I fell for it like a sucker.

While I do agree that unity is the way to go in the fight for rights, I can understand why one would want to separate the T from the LGB. It’s an issue of consistency - L, G, and B all describe sexuality, while T describes gender. The two are related, but ultimately separate concepts - one does not inform the other, and grouping them can hypothetically lead ignorant people to think that they are directly related, which could hypothetically lead to non-straight cisfolk experiencing more oppression than they would have otherwise experienced due to the perceived association with transfolk, as non-conforming sexuality is more generally accepted today than non-conforming gender.

That being said, it’s all hypothetical, and what matters is the reality that people from all spectra of nonconformity are regularly oppressed, and in many places, the oppressors treat anyone LGBT+ with the same disdain. So grouping them is vital for the sake of the most oppressed.

This kills the developer.

Honestly, I’d like a little grinding. Just enough that unlocking a character feels like an accomplishment.

But no paid DLC characters is great news!

Diablo 3 went from zero to hero with Reaper of Souls. I desperately want D4 to follow that same development path, but the Blizzard of old is long dead, and its rotting, zombified corpse has lost most of what made it great in life.

Still keeping my metaphorical fingers crossed, though, and hoping for a miracle.

I wouldn’t be too worried about burn-in. You’d have to display the same static image at max brightness nonstop for a month straight, according to this article.

“The issue” that needs addressing is the obsession our governments have with spying on us.

People are complex, and sure, some are just racist, but I don’t think it’s that simple.

Hatred isn’t nearly as powerful an emotion as fear. White people complaining about non-white main characters aren’t necessarily racist; it’s more likely, I think, that they’re afraid of losing the only consistent part of the white identity: being the “default” race.

Sounds like something an AI-loving Nazi would say!

Seriously, though, yes. This was exactly my first thought. There are plenty of reasons to be apprehensive about AI, but conflating it with Nazis is just blatant propaganda.

'Bout time. The combat in the games has been what’s kept me from completing any of them. Great stories and characters, but tedious and boring gameplay.

With this news, it’s official: I am hyped.

What an absurd, ignorant notion. Of course social media has a negative impact on developing minds, but forcing sites to display warnings would have zero positive impact. Browser extensions would immediately pop up to hide those warnings, and if anything, the presence of such warnings would increase kids’ use of social media, since the danger is something even adults had a hard time understanding and kids love to rebel against oppressive systems. The warnings would turn into memes.

The only answers to this problem are to break up and ban social media companies (not possible) or get parents to actually be parents and teach their kids about the pitfalls of social media.

I hate to say it, 'cause Bethesda has been very influential throughout my gaming life, but it’s too little too late. Starfield is entirely unsalvageable without a complete overhaul and re-release using an upgraded engine that can actually handle the scope of the game.

Would that be so bad, though? The Nazi wastes money on a useless decorative blade and you get to take some money from a Nazi that might otherwise have gone to something worse.

So this is why Hogwarts Legacy didn’t have playable quidditch.

English is my primary language, so yes, I’m aware of the historical use of they/them as a non-gendered pronoun for hypothetical people.

I’m also aware of the fluid nature of language. I’m still salty about “literally” becoming its own antonym, but I have to accept it because it’s now part of English.

That being said, it’s never been socially acceptable to use they/them for a known person of a binary gender, and I’d argue that it’s even less acceptable now, thanks to the common adoption of they/them as a personal pronoun for known persons of nonbinary gender.

It’d be much less confusing if there was an entirely new pronoun for enbies. Or, better yet, if there were never any gendered pronouns to begin with. But this is the world we live in, and we all have to find the best way to navigate our own paths without kicking up dirt onto others’.

I completely agree. Gendered pronouns are not helpful and at this point only confuse things. I’m just glad English doesn’t have gendered nouns, too, like Latin-based languages.

Anyway, the fact is that they/them has become “gendered” in the sense that it’s now a preferred pronoun for a lot of people, mostly androgynous enbies, so its implicit meaning has changed. Sure, it’s still used as a non-gendered pronoun for hypothetical people, but when used for a real, known person, it has the same implication as he/him or she/her - that they appear to be a certain gender, enby in this case.

I’m a clearly masculine person - I’ve got a beard and I wear masculine clothes. I personally wouldn’t be offended, but I would think it very odd if someone saw me and thought they/them was an appropriate pronoun for me. If masculinity was as important to me as it is to most men, I could see myself getting offended at someone implying that I appear androgynous. Same as if an enby was referred to as he/him or she/her. Cisfolk’s emotions are just as valid as valid as enbies’.