I get the sentiment. But to me personally, "redundancy" is pretty clear and doesn't mask the pain that comes with being let go. There's also generally a difference between being "fired" and being "made redundant". Redundancy suggests that their job doesn't need to be done anymore b/c of a restructure, bankruptcy, merger, and the company needs to meet certain obligations for that redundancy not to be considered an "unfair dismissal".
Sure is a videogame
I dunno -- I'm sympathetic to the DLC argument, but bad performance isn't something I can forgive on launch day. I'm sure they'll patch it in time, but if I buy a full-priced game, I expect it to run decently well. Anything less makes for a poor user experience. If a publisher truly cares about user experience then they won't release a game in that state, or if they do, they'll make it 100% clear on the storefront that the game has performance issues.
Races of people exist in our society. Observing that, or mentioning race in any contents, isn't racism. I totally agree though -- all Australians should be treated equally. Unfortunately, since colonisation, Indigenous people have not been treated as equal to the settlers. In fact, they've been treated like shit. The system they live under is incentivised to treat them like shit, because it gives other people money and power and land. Crafting special solutions for them, based on their race in a racist system, their culture, their individual needs -- that's the only effective way to help. Every other way is blind. This goes for any group of people. We can give separate, necessary privileges to both Indigenous and Chinese people. It's not a zero sum game.
It's definitely coming as a browser feature, Mozilla has confirmed it :) https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/review-checker-review-quality
How come?
For sure. That's just how articles have to be titled to get clicks unfortunately. It can be annoying, but it helps keep journalism alive, so you take the good with the bad.
To be honest, that's pretty lame. It sounds like just because you feel weird about them calling you a guest, you won't accept their clear sovereignty in Australia.
What do you mean by the new way?
Most popular survival games (Minecraft, Valheim, Raft, Ark) are dull, unimaginative experiences that disrespect your time. I truly don't get the appeal, other than if you're a terminally online kid with nothing else going on. They promise this world of near-eternal fun and imagination, and then forget to develop fun mechanics, write a compelling story to give context to what you're doing, give you goals, teach you how to play...
Raft is probably the worst example I can think of. What a crock of shit that game was. Zero tutorial, a terrible grind. Just lazy. You can softlock yourself in the first 30 minutes if you jump onto an island and let your raft drift away, because you can't build a new raft, and all the game's resources spawn around it for no good reason. The game has a Very Positive rating on Steam with over 200,000 reviews...
There are some obvious exceptions. Terraria is still so charming, and does away with the hunger/thirst/durability trappings of other survivals. I didn't get too far into Subnautica, but it's clearly a fresh idea and has an ambitious story. And y'know... I can't be too hard on Minecraft, it's iconic.
But the rest is just hollow and soul-crushing and in most cases unfinished. They're punishing time-sinks disguised as a "world where you can do anything," and the fact that so many go to bat for them really makes me grieve for people's taste in games.
Hot take over... Woof, I need to lie down...
Great hot take. I sort of agree for something like Pokemon. But I'm surprised you think this way for all Nintendo games. In the world of 3D platformers for example, I'd say it's pretty hard to find something better than Mario Galaxy, or 3D World. Same goes for Mario Kart. It's got crisp controls, and the last game in particular had great track design. I wouldn't say Wipeout is a very apt comparison given it's not a kart racer.
Sure, I agree that "tech industry" can refer to individuals. But in this context, it's referring to corporations. That's the simplest interpretation of the headline, and if you don't arrive at that interpretation, it becomes increasingly apparent in the article.
"Nothing to do with tech" -- I disagree. The author is speaking to a specific issue of consent in how tech companies handle data and build UX. These are tech industry issues. Immoral data handling may also be an issue with Nestle, but the author isn't talking about Nestle. They also aren't purely talking about the general economic system of capitalism, because doing so would dilute their argument.
I don't know the author, but I don't think reducing the article to an effort to get "precious clicks" is fair. They're an established tech blogger, they've worked in security for many years, and as far as I know they make no money directly off of their articles. They even strongly encourage you to use an ad blocker when you enter the site.