• 0 Posts
  • 61 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 21st, 2023

help-circle






  • TLoZ: Spirit Tracks had you control Link primarily but you used Zelda’s ghost to possess things, help you fight, and solve puzzles. It would be hard for a solo dev, but you could have a knight with an AI that proceeded based on what paths you unlock for it. So the princess would be some sort of astral projection I guess. But then, you wouldn’t really feel trapped. Maybe you need to hide your activity from the dragon or distract it for a stealth aspect or resource management. You would need to balance swapping back and forth between your body and helping the knight. Might be easier to settle on an in-universe justification after figuring out the core gameplay.



  • As others have said, I would get it written down somewhere asap. In the future, you could ask to have an email sent to you to confirm the date, time, location, interviewers, and any other details like who to contact with questions/rescheduling. Plus they might also share hints like dress code, projected length, and expected types of questions that can help you prepare but might look bad if you explicitly asked for them.

    If I was a recruiter, I wouldn’t think less of you for asking for confirmation. Rather, it makes you seem professional and prudent to want to avoid mix-ups like what you just experienced, that you have a legitimate interest in the position, and that you value your interviewers’ time as well as your own. Even if you have a sharp memory, this sort of thing can easily happen just from someone mishearing or misspeaking on the phone.

    Good luck with the job hunt. You get better at it with experience, but even then, it’s mostly a numbers game. Don’t let a rejection get you down, every new application is a fresh start with more experience.




  • The problem is that then you need the government’s permission to procreate. There’s always the valid concern that the government would prevent you from having children to remove some undesirable trait from the population and justify it as being a danger to a child. I know you described basic competency skills, but there would always exist a very credible threat of it being politicized.

    In fact, this already happens for things like queer couples being rejected for adopting children or the Uyghur population being quietly genocided in China. And Eugenics was historically practiced such that criminals would be sterilized as part of their punishment.

    It’s worth pointing out that governments already intervene with unqualified parents by removing the child from the household. Shifting the burden of proof from the government needing to show neglect to parents needing to prove themselves worthy is a dangerous amount of authority to cede to a centralized, corruptible power.

    Also, it’s not clear how you handle unlicensed parents. People are going to have unsafe sex no matter how illegal you make it. Would you push for preemptively sterilizing everyone and trusting it can be reversed after a license is acquired? Forcing abortions? Confiscating the child after birth?



  • IIRC that community has strict ideas about what sources are allowed, and the moderation is consistent about enforcing that even if the written rules are vague. Not sure why people are saying dailymail isn’t a news source just because it’s low quality. A bad news outlet is still a news outlet. So the mod should have given a better reason for removing it, but I agree with it being removed.







  • I took a look and I see their point. Rule 3 sounds like there’s effectively a black list of known unreliable sources. And even then, it sounds like there would be exceptions based on the mods’ discretion. I wouldn’t expect a blanket ban on blogs from reading that.

    Personally, I think requiring a reputable source for an article is a good policy for the community, at least when one is available, as in this case. And it does sound like it is being enforced objectively. We are in an age where information is weaponized and fake news and engagement is manufactured maliciously. It makes sense to be skeptical of sources with no reputation on the line.

    But I do think the requirement should be clarified in the rules better to match what it means de facto. If nothing else, it would simplify things when someone complains again in the future. And including a list of repeat offender sites could be helpful so long as it’s clear that it is not exhaustive. Just mentioning that MBFC is used to judge sources could reduce the amount of unreliable posts in the first place.

    For reference, these are the rules I see:

    Rules:

    1. Be civil. Disagreements happen, that does not give you the right to personally insult each other.

    2. No racism or bigotry.

    3. Posts from sources that aren’t known to be incredibly biased for either side of the spectrum are preferred. If this is not an option, you may post from whatever source you have as long as it is relevant to this community.

    4. Post titles should be the same as the article title.

    5. No spam, self-promotion, or trolling.

    Instance-wide rules always apply.