There is also the concept of "positive" grooming, for instance a child given specific education and resources to provide an advantage in something like politics could be said to be being "groomed" for politics or leadership.
I'd say the idea of grooming is more intentional than just regular child-raising, but that might be subjective.
As i said though, the current common usage is almost always negative and sexual in nature, it's just not a requirement.
At Launch the game was heroically broken on ps4, literally unplayable.
PS5 was buggy but doable.
PC was hit and miss, i had a reasonable time with it though.
Agree about the turnaround, like a faster no mans sky, which i would hope with the difference in budget.
Not understanding how it doesn’t qualify under my original statement.
I wasn't addressing your original post, but i can give my opinion i suppose.
Your original criteria of "AAA done right" were:
"solid ending, no monetization beyond a full expansion for less than retail, and good story".
So the comment:
Releasing a broken beta version for full retail price is not “AAA done right”
Doesn't so much point out how cyberpunk doesn't fit your proposed criteria, but rather that "baseline release quality" should also be in the list.
Which i agree with, I'd go as far as to say "should be a playable, functional game at launch" is a baseline requirement for any type of studios that wishes to be considered "Doing things right".
Depends on how debilitating it is, if its bad enough, therapy might be a useful option.
Body dysmorphia about weight might need a bit more help than you can give as an individual.
It might not meet the criteria for that, but worth consideration.
Edit: to clarify, dysmorphia like this is where the brain refuses to acknowledge the relatively objective reality of a "normal" weight.
It's often one of the underlying causes of bulimia/anorexia and the converse.
that's a dictionary definition , top tier cherry picking though, congrats.
I suspect more people than you think realise this is a potential outcome.
Assuming it boils over before there is another election (also assuming that's a thing that happens), military action is 100% a playable card.
It's a toddler with a nuclear tantrum button.
It's honestly not that much different in type then most nuclear powered nations.
The difference is "absolute last resort, and only maybe then" vs "they won't let me annex Greenland and are being mean to me"
Hyperbolic ofc, but illustrative.
What are the reasonable good alternatives though?
Nope. I’d declare said statement propandistic shite unless they can prove they are privy to what God does or does not allow.
Most communication is propaganda to some degree, you'll need to be more specific in the particular viewpoint you have here if you want a useful response.
Prove that god exists and i'll immediately get on to finding out what they do or do not allow.
Just so we're clear, faith isn't proof, in fact its definition is almost universally "belief, in the absence of proof"
Lots of people believing also doesn't equal more factually correct, it just means more people believe.
What do you think churches, mosques and temples are? “Non-physical”? Howzabout the Inquisition? Or Saudi Arabia’s “religious police?” Or the vast riches the Catholic Church has stolen over the centuries? I’d say no - they are pretty darn “physical.”
Correct, you have accurately described physical objects, not a single one of which i have denied the existence of.
If you could point out which one of those is the physical manifestation of a being that "would or would not allow" something then we can get on to the conversation part.
Just in case there's any confusion, i'm all aboard the " organised religion is mostly bullshit people doing horrific things on a large scale over even longer time frames" train.
Note the "organised", it's important.
Also the "religions are just socially acceptable cults" train.
It might seem like I'm on two trains but in reality it's a venn diagram in the shape of a train and it's basically a complete overlap.
See the above.
The above wasn't addressing any of the points so I'm not sure how it relates to this one either, but feel free to let me know.
I’m not exactly sure what you are trying to say here. I don’t see how ascribing magical powers to religious people changes the fundamental idiocy of the quote you used.
I genuinely think you are misunderstanding what was being said here, intentionally or otherwise.
Just in case it's unintentional, I'll try again, but with more describing.
The vs statement was used as an illustration of the difference between the description of a tangible manifestation of a being vs the description of actions of a groups of people with "belief" in a being.
One of those things is a "being"/manifestation performing an action, the other is a group performing actions due to a shared belief or "construct".
Also the first "quote i used" was from the original post, the second was a comparative example, neither of which i was stating as fact, purely as a demonstrative example.
it's Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes
I wouldn't expect logical thinking to be a strong characteristic in someone who'd threaten kids over a videogame.
To clarify , there is an aurora client for f-droid. https://gitlab.com/AuroraOSS/auroradroid
The OP mentions aurora store by name so they are probably not talking about the f-droid wrapper. Also if f-droid breaks rule 4 AuroraDroid almost certainly does.
I'm talking anecdotally and from my experience here, not as an absolute.
I will upfront admit i am somewhat biased against authority in general, especially what i perceived to be unearned authority (if you wish to be a respected authority, earn it and continue to do so) In this case however I'm talking about "authority" in a professional sense somewhat measured against the success or failure of particular projects or initiatives.
For the most part i agree with you but it seems like you are using the term "anti-authoritarian" as an absolute, as in being against authority is bad in all cases.
At a lot of companies "Critical thinking and standing up for your ideas" is considered anti-authoritarian because the company culture doesn't allow for that kind of autonomy of thought (by design or long term evolution usually).
Your example works in the context of a company that works in a manner that promotes/encourage that kind of person, not all of them do. My personal experience and that of my circle of colleagues and acquaintances, I'd guess that percentage is around 30/70 with the 70% being companies that either actively or passively punish/discourage both of those types of employees.
Which i'd imagine is what @bouh meant when they said "But good employees will hate your company, because you consider them like bad ones"
Anti-authoritarianism is a bad trait. when the authority in question is doing the correct things (for whatever definition of correct you wish to use). "Anti-authoritarianism" and "Critical thinking and standing up for your ideas" are not mutually exclusive.
As with most things it's contextual.
"What is not reasoned in, cannot be reasoned out."