I liked it. Unfortunately aside from valve, no serious studio has put any resources into making a good vr game.

Sitting games could be big on vr. Flight/space sims could be awesome.

I hope so too, that has to be a very difficult situation for working parents to navigate.

employers are permitted to require staff to work up to two unpaid hours per day for a limited period in return for more free time.

Wow.

Seems like the delight dobby portrayed when he was freed would put that argument to rest.

Don’t disagree but surely it’s not impossible to add some regulations to protect the consumers here.

We have always subsidized having kids over those who don’t. And honestly its the best use of our tax dollars. What do you think school is? Also, parents pay taxes before and after they raise children.

ADA lawsuits can fix that.

The front end ecosystem is a bit out of control, but the issue isn’t JavaScript. Nearly every site uses it and people don’t notice.

Business are making intentional design decisions that lead to what we see here.

Wow, that’s news to me. I didn’t realize it had gone so far in some places.

Who uses bad Internet intentionally? I’ve been waiting 20 years for a different service.

Whatsapp is just a text service that gained popularity because it bypassed expensive text messaging rates, and it’s superior to SMS in most ways anyways. If meta starts charging people will go somewhere else. It’s odd to hear this take that people are somehow dependant on it. It’s more replaceable than a pair of shoes.

Firstly, be respectful.

There is a huge range of equity implementations in the US. My company, for example, has not done any “means testing” when recruiting for racial equity. Nor when it donates to blanket racial programs. There was no means testing when internships were offered to high school students of particular demographics.

Then they would put resources to poor people of any demographic.

The picture misses the millions of people who are too poor to afford a ladder and don’t belong to one of the groups targeted by the equity crowd.

Equality people: “Let’s fund these people who are objectively poor, they are disadvantaged and need it.”.

Equity people: “let’s fund people part of this group I can clearly identify by looking at them. They are likely to be disadvantaged.”

We have need based programs to address people who need help. Why not bolster to those? Why focus on shifting resources/programs away from the poor to people who objectively don’t need it as much? We know how much people need, we can measure income.

How much money/time/reaources are going into programs, grants, scholarships that target single demographics?

That’s not how equity works in practice. It doesn’t examine anyone’s actual capabilities or disadvantages. They bucket large groups of people into categories they deem worthy to receive resources, despite their actual need. Every person has their individual story, challenges, and priveleges yet equity assumes otherwise, that you deserve compensation based on the group you were assigned to, not what you actually need.