It's outselling is what caused Microsoft to not deny it. It originally denied it because they had a rule that games needed feature parity with both Series X and S. BG3 split screen couldn't be done on S. The massive success is what led them to relax the rule. And virtually no one saw this level of success coming from within the gaming industry, including the developers themselves.

Edit: I just realized this is being upset about Starfield.

That is totally the fault of gamers. The biggest reason given for buying a PS5 over Xbox was exclusives. What the fuck did you think was going to happen? Sony started the exclusives battle and continually came out ahead. Obviously MS is going to fight. Making exclusives such an important decision in console purchases drove exclusives to be important overall. There's no sense in being upset that the industrynis literally responded to gamer's actions and stated motivations.

Tbf, a lot of people misjudged it, including Larian. I don't think a lot of people really believed the "choices and decisions matter" would work as well as it did. Prior to release, I read an article that talked about how it was gonna be neat that the in-game news would update based on your actions. Like, that was the noteworthy function to discuss about the game. "NPCs might talk about your actions in passing to each other".

Did Microsoft underestimate it more than others? Sure. But pretending like every corporation, including Larian, didn't underestimate it a whole lot is a bit crazy.

Edit: and isn't the game Divinity: Original Sin II? Did it have other names in other international markets?

Edit: this was submitted as a response to https://lemmy.world/comment/3615435 but Kbin didn't seem to actually tie them together. It shows me that it was written as a reply on Kbin, but seems to have lost connection to the comment hierarchy.

AI can very easily be abused and I don't see how this is related to the tech being open sourced or not. Fighting to ensure you aren't exploited is fine and I support anyone to fight against exploitation.

Honestly, I could see it being both. HB isn't entirely cold-hearted corporatism.

Absolutely. Before the video, she lied about it and downplayed it and accused others about falsifying the accusations. Suddenly there's video and now she "apologizes" (she didn't really, it was a fake apology, she didn't say she's sorry for what she did, she basic said she's sorry others found it offensive, that's not an apology) and she's entirely quiet on all the lying she did beforehand about saying it was overblown.

Woman is a word. Usually it's more questionable when someone says man and female. It makes women sound less than by making it more sterile and similar to specimens. It really depends on context. Female is language, but it's usage could easily make it incel language. Context is key. Not a fan of calling out an action with zero context whatsoever like the above post.

I'm confused by the group of people chosen. What's the specific meme above referencing?

Edit: I feel like the upvotes are assuming this is the base picture and just blindly upvoting it. The faces are replaced, which means it's intentionally choosing those individuals. I'd like to see the OP actually defend the argument behind choosing those individuals. The closest could maybe be the Biden administration asking Facebook to prevent false narratives and fake information, which I'll admit is gray area at best, but even then, it's only tangental to the post in topic. I've never seen anyone attack free speech in the name of free speech except for the right. They're literally banning books in public libraries and claiming private entities need to carry speech they don't like (unless you're a baker or hypothetical web designer, in which case, no you're cool with not publishing speech you don't like)

In his defense, if you don't take that approach to the situation, you're going to be fucking depressed.

The people commenting with the context so others can understand it kind of highlights the absurdity of the original claim.

https://help.twitch.tv/s/article/supported-browsers?language=en_US#firefox

Twitch's official stance is to support the latest two versions of Firefox. Are you modifying your browser agent string at all? Or using any plugins that are privacy/ad-blocking related?

Shitty as this behavior may be

That is exactly why. If you need to do something shitty, soften the blow. If you don't, you're an asshole. Making something hurt less means you have empathy. I'm honestly confused why you needed to ask. You're taking something of value from someone and providing nothing in return.

Edit: just because something is allowed (taking the account) doesn't mean it's "good" (in the moral sense). And just because something isn't required (offering compensation) doesn't mean it can't be used as a sign of good will or the lack of it can't be viewed negatively.

this is likely a HIPAA violation. The thing conservatives crowed about back during vaccine requirements for jobs (and were entirely wrong about being related to HIPAA). The hospital would explicitly require patients to approve providing the records to the government. The government is a covered entity in HIPAA.