sarsaparilyptus

The best part is, they already made a game with a gigantic world full of procedurally-generated content: Daggerfall, which is remembered fondly for a reason.

"Decay"

What's left to decay? It's dust now. Remember when Eidos used a PR firm to strongarm websites into not publishing reviews of Tomb Raider: Underworld if they were less than an 8/10 till after launch?

"That's right. We're trying to manage the review scores at the request of Eidos." When asked why, the spokesperson said: "Just that we're trying to get the Metacritic rating to be high, and the brand manager in the US that's handling all of Tomb Raider has asked that we just manage the scores before the game is out, really, just to ensure that we don't put people off buying the game, basically."

That was 15 years ago, and despite the fact that Barrington Harvey went on to lie and pretend they never said that, everybody knew that kind of thing was old hat back then too. Mainstream gaming journalism is a captured industry.

I'm not a console owner, are PlayStation owners really giving Sony $60 a year to play online multiplayer? It shouldn't cost anything in the first place. If Valve or GoG or anyone else started trying to tell me I had to pay them extra to send certain packets through my router, I'd have a good laugh.

TempleOS's implementation is cooler though

During these formative years of the Web, web pages could only be static, lacking the capability for dynamic behavior after the page was loaded in the browser.

And it was better. Frankly, http was a mistake, humanity would be healthier and happier if we stopped at gopher.

Crypto will never be a thing. We'll be in a Star Trek style post-economy future where the concept of money is worthless before crypto will ever be a viable alternative to fiat currency, at least for anything aside from buying drugs online from dudes with roman statue avatars who talk like anime villains.

Not a single solid reason given

Well not to you, but that doesn't mean much considering you think spyware is fine as long as it's opt-in (and that being a furry is equivalent in severity to being homophobic, wtf). The fact that you think this article is bad is basically a ringing endorsement.

I applaud your ability to suffer fools, but it's not one I share.

Yeah, I get it. Here's the thing though, this specific part:

I also have autism and some people with the condition aren’t as good as me at putting together the connotations of words AND the overall post to figure out the poster’s intentions. And some people aren’t terminally online and have less exposure to seeing this word used. They’ve likely overwhelmingly seen it used as a pejorative, and end up very skeptical of this post.

Those people all have one thing in common: nobody put a gun to their head and said "what's going on with this post? Make the call and post your comment NOW". One thing all we here on the internet do all have in common is the ability to read, and to use our sapience to make decisions about what we read. To say "this seems out of line. Could it be what I think it is, or am I assuming?" By process of elimination, a person either chooses to do that, or chooses to be assumptive. And also:

I don’t like the idea that people like me, or that people who might have reasonably arrived at a different conclusion about this, are being told that they’re huge dorks who need to go outside.

There is no reasonable way to get to the wrong conclusion.
Ever.
If you're being reasonable, you either find the right conclusion beyond all reasonable doubt, or you concede that you don't have enough information and then move on with your life. The only way to get to the wrong conclusion is to jump to conclusions, because being reasonable requires you to start from the point of "there may be no answer I can find". The people in this thread who got it wrong made assumptions, jumped to conclusions, and defended themselves by being belligerent. That is a fundamental lack of respect for others' intelligence that goes beyond being rude to people and using mean words.