I see, that's my bad, I thought this was a conversation, but it's actually a rant.

No worries, I rescind my participation

You go off king/queen/.

There are many such projects that have done similar things that aren't getting the attention this one has.

The reason this one it getting the attention it is, is because of the replies and behaviour of the dev.

i played this game hard for a while, but there were so many CTD progress reverting bugs that it finally killed my enthusiasm for it.

All of what you said is reasonable at a glance, still it's not relevant to my argument.

Reasons exist.

Whether or not the reasons are good is irrelevant to my original argument.

If you're asking me whether or not i think the reasons are good, my answer is i don't know and I’m not invested enough in the answer to go looking.

What i will do is put down my uneducated answers to your response.

You could get 40% more of the same data by increasing output on the ISS with no increased risk of death.

Increasing output of existing members is unlikely to be equivalent to data from entirely new test subjects.

40% more data on existing subjects isn't the same as 40% additional data from new subjects.

For a more equal comparison you'd need to ship new people to the ISS and then your argument would only be true if there was zero risk of death in getting new people to the ISS.

The difference in environment between the ISS and the moon is worthless, instead of zero gravity they’re just in low gravity, which we can achieve without even going to the ISS, low orbit would do the trick with even lower risk.

That's subjective but you could be right, i'd possibly argue that the combination of factors in space in addition to the low gravity would be different than a terrestrial equivalent, so a low gravity experiment in the ISS might be a better comparison.

I don't know enough to be certain about any of that though.

This is a publicity stunt to compensate for the US looking like a fucking joke, extra risk for no extra benefit beyond showing off.

Possibly, i'd guess likely, but again i don't know enough to have a reasonable opinion on this.

Corner

Do you mean this ?

genuine question.

I was of the impression that one of the major selling points of de-federated services such as this was to not have to engage in circumvention to get around policies and rules that you don't agree with.

If you don't agree with the administration of an instance then don't use that instance (or start your own and de-federate that instance i suppose).

Dialogue about the policies and subjective opinion makes sense, if that's how you want to engage, but the somewhat decentralised nature of the fediverse make someone power tripping as an admin on an instance is easy enough to avoid by just not engaging.

More succinctly , why would you want to expend effort to be part of an instance that foundationally doesn't align with your values.

To put it another way, a mod doing their utmost to create an echo chamber of their liking (no matter how distasteful that liking might be) is allowable within the bounds of how this was all designed, the system working as intended.

Whereas creating multiple accounts to avoid bans, while technically possible, seems kind of outside of the intended process.

I could be very wrong about how all this works however, as my grasp of the intricacies is somewhat shallow.

I imagine it's from all the times authority figures from religious organisations that are so zealously espousing "think of the children" have ended up being the very thing they are supposedly fighting against.

I can't speak to the lightheartedness of the intent of the author, but I can say that I personally understand the structure of the humour at play.

Plenty of times a Church has reported it's leaders who were abusing their position and co-operated with law enforcement.

And plenty of times they've done the exact opposite, enough that is is part of the cultural Zeitgeist of multiple nations that religious authority figures have been abusing their power and getting away with it for centuries.

My church's policy is that you report it to the police first.

I mean this genuinely and not as an attack.

I'm not sure how to address that level of naïveté but i will explain it as best I can.

Firstly, I can't imagine there is a single policy written anywhere that states "hide the child abuse from the police" as the official position.

Secondly, I'd wager good money that all the religious institutions and staff at all those places would swear up and down that the policy was to report it to the police and it was a few "bad actors" in an otherwise fundamentally good organisation.

The exception possibly being those very insular cults where the abuses are part of the actual doctrine, in those cases they'd admit to it because they don't see themselves as having some something wrong based on their beliefs.

There are numerous historic and ongoing cases about this, it's not difficult to find.

Even if you personally (or even all the people you know) are 100% following this guideline, it's provably true that that isn't always the case.

"But the rules say we should report them" isn't strong position to defend any size of organised religion in the face of the sheer number of accusations, arrests and investigations to the contrary.

As I said, and I mean it, this isn't an attack on you or yours. You could be absolutely correct about your circle, and I have no issues with individual faith (as long as its not forced upon others).

The issue I have is with trying to defend organised religion as a whole using small anecdotal data as a basis.

Honestly, I want you to be right but "trust me bro" isn't a good argument and you need good arguments, because weak arguments are worse than no arguments at all.

The game from the screenshot, Alan Wake 2.

Also Control by the same company, but to a lesser degree.

The change is generally more subtle than people expect but it adds to the overall atmosphere, which is important for these games.

so, MASD(or MDE) then ?

Americano is not even American

I mean that's a pretty specific phrasing.

I said it’s not American, as in it doesn’t come from the US.

Those are not the same things, but i know what you mean now, so thanks.

...... just to be clear, you think "South East Asia" refers to it's location relative to europe and not it's relative location to the rough centre of Asia ?

So, south america is called that because it's .... south of europe ?

Cost per GiB is higher and long term reliability is lower in most scenarios.

The failure scenarios for spinning rust tends to work better with large storage arrays as well.

Not all absolutes, but enough of them are true on a common enough basis that spending the extra on SSD's isn't usually worth it.

If you want some real in depth explanations there's probably a datahoarder community somewhere or reddit if you are so inclined.