Mithaldu

A translator usually does 1000 words per day. Are they "not doing it"?

That also contradicts an earlier statement in the article:

> The moderator has not only to decide whether reported posts should be removed or kept on the platform but navigated into a highly complex hierarchy of actions.

Thanks for the recommendation. You mean the movie from 2004?

Also, i remembered another one: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22733729-the-long-way-to... Can't describe too much without spoilers, but it's lovely and unique.

I don't have very good memory, so sadly i can give only two examples. A shorter one is Little Witch Academia. A longer one (it'll take a month at least to get to the impactful parts) is the main story quest line of Final Fantasy 14. I think Steins;Gate also went in that direction, and out of these three would be the most HN-mainstream-compatible i expect.

Isn't any form of "monster" just a cheap "this thing is evil" marker?

> Nowadays if you want to have your protagonists shooting at their enemies or hitting them with sharp bits of metal you basically have to choose between a good-vs-evil narrative or having only anti-heroes rather than plain heroes (and both choices are now common).

Or you need story-telling that capitalizes on information deficit differences.

A good kind of story arc i've seen recently is having the protagonist do things in what looks like a basic good/evil conflict, then learn that the situation was different than it looked like (ranging from "the 'evil guys' were misguided but good-at-heart" to "protagonist was wrong and unwittingly fucking everything up"), then focus on how that aftermath is handled as the actual primary story.

And depending on how much "screen time" you have available, you can also keep expanding this and go through various twists and turns and kinds of information deficits without ever having to delve into actual thought-less "they're good/evil" stuff as you zoom out in scope.

VR is not about image perception, but image reaction. The important part is how long it takes from you providing input to the input reaction being perceived by you. The latency between that. And given a sufficiently huge sample size (interacting with VR is many minutes of nothing but samples) a human can very easily discern this latency.

Why do you believe FYGM is an appropriate response?

Please don't troll.

> This guy thinks that standing on his feet is unhealthy, yet the new trend is for people working 9-5s to use standing desks since sitting down can affect blood circulation and lead to heart disease or vascular disease.

This is the kind of binary thinking that's problematic with a lot of people i talk to nowadays. How about this:

Instead of it being a question of which one is wrong or right, what if both are right to some degree?

What if standing for a full 8 hour work day is unhealthy, just in a different way than sitting for an 8 hour work day is unhealthy?

What if the real answer is: Both is necessary, in moderation?

How does he expect a building that flimsy to last particularly long?

I don't think it even matters whether it is public speech or not.

The constitution guarantees free speech only insofar it is not limited by "provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons, and in the right to personal honour".

And http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stg... sets forth some pretty serious limitations.

Nowhere is it mentioned whether any of this happens in private or in public.

Notably both of these countries are english majority. I went looking for german debate clubs and found that we have some, but also that they're relatively young (the national debating org in germany was formed only in 2001), and were mainly formed based on inspiration by the english language sphere.

I'm also curious what exactly you mean with civil discourse? I don't know which style you're referring to, but i've seen people who cared primarily about discourse being "polite", even if the most horrible ideas were being presented as valid.

You're right that historically debate was more noble. But meanings of words change.

The problem with debate as it exists today in the english sphere is that it refers to a sport where teams try to argue for views they don't even hold regardless of what they themselves even think about it. Due to the idea that regardless of the actual merits of an idea debated, either team needs to have an equal chance to "win", the whole "evaluating merits" part has in more recent times been deemphasized.

> The idea that you can keep ideological genies in their bottles

You're misunderstanding what the idea is. The idea is to show german children:

That person has that opinion and they may think it, but the opinion is wrong. We had a huge big argument over it, some people call it WW2, and the result was: Their opinion is wrong. So we decided to let that be the last argument about it and not let them start another argument, because the question has been answered at length.

The difference is that this is made public. There is no secret conspiracy and marketing campaign to change public opinion. It is taught in schools and encoded in publically accessible law.

> nationality

I mention it specifically because, in all the nationalities i have talked to, i.e. in my personal experience, the USA is the only one to have a high school debate club culture that's widely spread.

> debate

The last time i had a conversation with an american trained in "debate", it was quickly obvious that reality and truth were the last thing on his mind, but scoring rethoric points was the first.

The rest of your points are good, but i think if you start it out with the word debate, many americans are going to mentally short-circuit to that style of conflict, instead of "respectful conversation".

Terraria (178k followers) and Don't Starve (63k followers) get this stuff because they have the kind of playerbase size that makes people feel like the devs won't ever see their message anyhow. They tried to ask for stuff, or saw others try and didn't even see evidence that the devs saw the question. So they figure it's fine to just yell at the ocean.

> We're talking here about abuse, not constructive criticism.

Some F2P is really good and improves the product. (Warframe) That's the exception however and most of it is in fact abusive. As such people upset about it don't expect constructive criticism to get anywhere and engage in behavior that amounts to, in their view, "eye for an eye".

Part of it might also be which specific game you worked on. The recent battlefront fracas came about because it was a first person shooter, a genre where people are unaccustomed to being psyops'd by the devs, and thus had a fresh and untapped supply of outrage.

Meanwhile looking at your portfolio, Star Wars™ Galaxy of Heroes looks from a distance like your average mobile gacha thing created only to tick another checkbox on the spreadsheet of tie-ins. Just reading the google play store description i end up thinking i would be surprised if its f2p parts weren't horribly abusive.

(Note i'm not saying they are, but what your marketing department did makes it stand out from its brethren in no particular way.)

> So the next person this happens to goes to jail?

No, that is not how you build a culture. :)

I live in germany, traffic law works like that here, and the insurance fraud you mention is not known here. Not sure why. Maybe because of other aspects of the law culture here.

I said "institute a traffic law culture", not "apply this ruling to this woman". If the entire culture is based on certain assumptions, many aspects of it change to accommodate it.

For example all of the things nickspacek mentions here would be brought in in due course based on pressure from the drivers themselves: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16107645

There's plenty that could've been done to prevent this. Most basic and simple would be to institute a traffic law culture in which the driver does get blame by default for hurting a pedestrian so they have pedestrians on their mind every single minute they control their car.

Would you follow up on the issue he had if he provided you with the order details and repair communication? There should be a good chance of there being a paper trail to follow and a mismatch between communication to customer and repair hardware actually used, no?

Small note here: I was told the above reads like sarcasm, and i'd like to state that the lines above the edit are 100% not sarcastic and meant exactly as stated.

> legitimate content

Having seen the tweet in question i'm not sure it is legitimate content.

As for the rest: Eh, can't be arsed to try and argue more.

You're incorrect. They have no reason to fear punishment from a wrong call.

For one, the law doesn't require deletion. They just have to make it publically inaccessible pending outcome of inspection. And if they're unsure about the legality they can punt it to another org and won't suffer consequences.

In fact, the law even stipulates that the data must be retained for 10 weeks to allow further action.

> Twitter being forced to delete

It is not at all though. The law very clearly spells out that for unclear cases (and the satire tweet definitely falls under that) there are significant exceptions and leeway.