birthday_attack

Hard agree with all of this. I've never been good at shooters, especially PvP, but the invasions always felt like more of a chess match than a true gun duel. Outsmarting some human player who's a better shot than me made for super memorable and satisfying moments.

I'll also add that the voice acting and dialogue were great. Dishonored is infamous for having limited voice lines ("shall we meet for whiskey and cigars tonight?"), and in a game with a time loop mechanic and limited maps, I thought for sure it would be even worse. But I was pleasantly surprised. It's still annoying for scripted events that repeat, but the Colt and Julianna banter kind of made up for it imo

I love leaving my standing desk and ergonomic equipment behind so that I can use objectively worse equipment with the promise that "renovations are coming to your team in the next few years." My boss hunts for open seating in the neighboring office building so that they can actually use a standing desk on the days we have to come in, which is antithetical to the "spirit of collaboration" RTO is supposed to foster.

Like either let us use our own setup or invest in an office setup that is tolerable for people to use. We all know that they don't give a shit about employees, but they could at least pretend they're considering our experience when forcing these decisions on us.

That's a common misconception that's been passed around the Internet so long that it's become common knowledge. There's a great (now deleted, but archived) writeup showing that the Wachowskis always intended humans to be batteries. The actual source of the "processors" idea came from a Neil Gaiman short story written to promote the movie at its release

PRR PRR PRR

Ok but remember this part?

We have a number of options – some fall on the shoulders of consumers; some on producers.

Maybe we can't convince everyone to quit eating meat, but I would hope that we could appeal to self-described environmentalists, who have a stated interest in making sustainable changes.

That's the OP's point, after all. That the science unambiguously states that we need to stop eating meat if we care about meeting our climate goals. Any environmentalist who learns that this needs to happen and still chooses to eat meat is acting against their own ethics.

It has to be both. Our World in Data puts it one way:

We have a number of options – some fall on the shoulders of consumers; some on producers.

Or to cut through the flowery language - farms need to stop producing meat, and people need to stop eating it.

The biggest reduction would come from the adoption of plant-rich diets. Emissions would be halved compared to business-as-usual.

Man I had to rephrase this a dozen times and I still don't have a good way to communicate what I'm trying to say.

The goal of this kind of callout is to make vegetarians, people who already value animal welfare, aware that they may still be contributing towards animal cruelty. For example, I was a vegetarian for years and then got rocked by the realization that, "oh wait, vegans aren't just crazies that I can blow off, it was me who was ignorant the whole time."

So I anecdotally assume that a huge percentage of vegans are vegetarians who went from thinking "vegetarians and vegans are basically the same, besides vegans taking the idea too far" to "oh wait there's a huge important difference between the two." On vegan spaces, people often joke that "bullying worked on me lol" because the gentle approaches are easily ignored, but the really blunt "your actions don't align with your stated ethics" is really difficult to brush off.

TL;DR yeah I think you're right. The original announcement from the Reddit admin comment didn't give any details, so I filled in the gaps myself and assumed "heart" would imply compassion, especially since I've seen that "stay for the empathy" tagline for so long. After all, why would the change from "front page" be necessary if "heart" of the internet gives a the same sentiment that it's the core or cutting edge?

The contracted marketing team's writeup has some limited insight into the reasoning:

...Reddit’s updated brand materials would all point back to four traits: inherently eclectic, positively different, delightfully absurd, and genuinely candid. These traits, along with the uniquely empowering foundation of Reddit as the best place to discover and participate through real conversation, led the team to a new, strategic description of Reddit as “the heart of the internet.”

I'm not experienced enough in marketing jargon to understand if this is saying that "heart" only implies that there are lots of communities available on the platform, or if "genuine" and "real conversations" should be factored in to imply that these conversations and communities should be heartfelt.

But all in all, it seems like the focus is on "you can discuss with lots of communities." And since "front page" doesn't imply discussion as much as it implies reading a newspaper, the change was needed.

I find it odd that they changed their tagline from "the front page of the Internet" to "the heart of the Internet." Reddit is certainly a massive hub for discussion, but "compassionate" is not the first association I have with Reddit conversations. Smug condescension, certainly. Frothing mob mentality, often. But compassion? Rare, at best.

I suppose that Reddit may be trying to simply manifest their hopes for the platform into a reality, but I don't think it's that easy. The Reddit welcome banner reads, "Come for the cats, stay for the empathy," but most people probably know Reddit for the Boston Bombing debacle, r/theDonald trolls, and other nasty news items. It's hard to believe the cushy corporate messaging when Reddit has so consistently allowed horrible shit on their site until the media fervor gets so intense that they can't ignore it anymore