Do I get to be depraved and evil if I drink plant milk? I haven’t had a glass lately, but that actually sounds refreshing.

I remember speculating as a (small) kid that the AI soldiers in Battlefront II’s local multiplayer might be real people employed by the developer. Not the brightest child was I.

Fair point! I entirely agree with that perspective in other areas. If we’re using this as an example, then I understand why, but I actually think this is one example where the change is a tangibly good thing.

Why did I think the centaur on the left was a man doing unspeakable things to a small elephant

And god knows McDonald’s wouldn’t want to be confused with inferior coffee.

I’m actually going to say that I think designing a restaurant for disastrously unhealthy fast food in a way that makes it look and feel like a playground shouldn’t be legal, and I’m happy to see them look as dull and unappealing as possible to young children.

The ongoing health crisis is so severe in no small part because of things like that 1990s picture getting kids addicted to trash. This post feels like someone from the 1970s yearning for the days of Joe Camel. Plain packaging does work.

Edit: I thought Joe Camel was much older than it really is.

AIPAC dark money paying for itself thousands of times over.

I know it’s just an early mockup, but Calamares looks waaaay better than this, and I wouldn’t want to see this replace it in anything even close to this state. This is not slick.

Though serviceable, [Calamares is] not as slick as the initial setup on Windows, macOS or even GNOME.

Setup on Windows? Slick? Dude fuck, I do not want whatever vision this author wants for Linux if the minefield of dark patterns is “slick” to them. Calamares is the slickest, most straightforward OS install I’ve ever had, far surpassing Windows.

So did anyone else read this in Silver’s voice from the Sonic '06 fandub?

This is so true. But your title is fewer than 20 characters. Under Rule 7, Amendment 6 § 38.5(b), you’re hereby banned from every community I moderate.

Okay, but she just responds with the misandrist “why are men”, obviously directly accusing him of being sexist on inconclusive circumstantial evidence. That’s going well beyond “suspecting” him of anything.

Why are you dismissing this as a possibility?

They’re not. The burden of proof works in a way that the person making a claim (“they’re sexist”) needs to back it up with evidence. They’re not saying he’s definitively not sexist; they’re saying there’s insufficient evidence.

OP, you linked to the comments instead of the top of the article. 💀

I’m not agreeing with their dumb point, but just pointing out: this satellite works on radar. I’m genuinely concerned how many people seem to be commenting without reading the article.

I don’t know why you’re assuming their ‘/s’ is alluding to sarcasm around this being surveillance versus sarcasm around needing more surveillance. “We need more surveillance (we actually don’t)” seems to be indicated here, not “This is surveillance (it actually isn’t)”.

Especially when Reddit types are notoriously, chronically unable to read articles before they go spouting uninformed bullshit in the comments.

Did you read the part where this is a radar satellite designed for monitoring the climate? That is, did you read anything besides the headline before you decided: “Yeah, I think I’m able to make informed commentary about this”?

That wasn’t me you were talking to initially; that was TheLeadenSea. You’ll have to ask them, not me.

Fucking thank you. Yes, experienced editor to add to this: that’s called the lead, and that’s exactly what it exists to do. Readers are not even close to starved for summaries:

• Every single article has one of these. It is at the very beginning – at most around 600 words for very extensive, multifaceted subjects. 250 to 400 words is generally considered an excellent window to target for a well-fleshed-out article.
• Even then, the first sentence itself is almost always a definition of the subject, making it a summary unto itself.
• And even then, the first paragraph is also its own form of summary in a multi-paragraph lead.
• And even then, the infobox to the right of 99% of articles gives easily digestible data about the subject in case you only care about raw, important facts (e.g. when a politician was in office, what a country’s flag is, what systems a game was released for, etc.)
• And even then, if you just want a specific subtopic, there’s a table of contents, and we generally try as much as possible (without harming the “linear” reading experience) to make it so that you can intuitively jump straight from the lead to a main section (level 2 header).
• Even then, if you don’t want to click on an article and just instead hover over its wikilink, we provide a summary of fewer than 40 characters so that readers get a broad idea without having to click (e.g. Shoeless Joe Jackson’s is “American baseball player (1887–1951)”).

What’s outrageous here isn’t wanting summaries; it’s that summaries already exist in so many ways, written by the human writers who write the contents of the articles. Not only that, but as a free, editable encyclopedia, these summaries can be changed at any time if editors feel like they no longer do their job somehow.

This not only bypasses the hard work real, human editors put in for free in favor of some generic slop that’s impossible to QA, but it also bypasses the spirit of Wikipedia that if you see something wrong, you should be able to fix it.

Okay, but I literally just expressed how they’re fundamentally, pragmatically different while you keep reaching for the word “semantics”. You can still disagree that it’s wrong to copy – that’s not what I’m trying to litigage. To call it only semantically different from stealing is asinine.

Too bad. Because it’s being redistributed through a third party, you aren’t even stealing a negligible amount of electricity, bandwidth, or CPU time from them. Damn, when you think about it, it’s just not “stealing” in any capacity, is it?