Dis u?

I’m not comfortable with companies using any kind of marketing tactics.

Now, I felt like I was fairly gentle in pointing out the absurd nature of that statement. I even readily acknowledged what I assumed to be your intent, i.e. there are absolutely marketing tactics which go beyond the pale. But, as I, and others, have pointed out, you’re the one operating on your own personal definition of marketing here, which is in contradiction to what that concept actually is. Any intro to business class will tell you that marketing is, essentially, ANYTHING an entity does to inform people of its services. It’s an enormous umbrella, which includes tactics both odious and innocuous. It is as readily applicable to the gal who posts on Facebook that she’ll do your hair for $20 as it is Facebook selling that information to a third party so she can be served targeted salon equipment advertisements.

All I’m saying is, if you say “all marketing is bad”, you need to be prepared for people to call you out on the hyperbole of that statement. Therefore, you might consider arguing the point you actually intend to make (which is good and I agree with you about!), instead of leading with a statement which you don’t actually believe.

Calling you Chicken Little was facetious, but meant to be a gentle dig at the hyperbole. Still, I shouldn’t have said it, and I apologize.

Take it easy there, Chicken Little. “I’m uncomfortable with any kind of marketing” is so hyperbolic, it’s almost parody. Putting the name of your business above the door? Thats marketing. Creating a website where customers can find and engage your services? That’s marketing. A minority-owned business proudly owning that status? That’s marketing. A friend telling you about the great meal they had the other day from a local restaurant? Believe it or not, that’s marketing.

Marketing is not evil in and of itself. Unless humanity returns to a tribal social structure where you can count the number of non-related acquaintances you know on your fingers, it is a necessary component of operating a business. Of course, you’re 100% right that there have been dubious applications of the principle, but again, you’re throwing the baby out with the bath water, and it hampers the salient point that you’re trying to make.

I can see where they’d get the idea, though they really ought to realize that rat tails do not necessarily mean rodent. Trans folks are obviously marsupials.

A picture really is worth a thousand words. Nailed my exact impression haha

I feel like I just leveled up my descriptive abilities for RPG DMing purposes.

To be clear, I don’t mean this perjoratively towards you by any means, but I do find your reaction amusing. “How uneducated!”, you say, as though another round of sensitivity training at the academy will fix this behavior right up.

Idk about that, I heard a fair number of folks who were less enthused with Eternal vs 2016. The general sentiment among those folks was that Eternal skewed too far into “combat puzzle” territory, where encounters felt like they had prescribed “solutions” that you needed to perform to succeed reliably. This iteration being less about resource management and high speed encounter flow seems to be a reaction to those critiques.

Nothing to be done for it.

Journalism is not history, and vice versa. They are different disciplines, with different goals and methodologies. Don’t confuse the work journalists do with the work of historians, and vice versa. John Reed’s account of the Russian Revolution is an invaluable source for historians, of course, but it is only one such source, and any history which overly relies upon it risks giving a biased account. Not to say that that doesn’t happen, but it’s explicitly antithetical to the notional goal of practicing history. No such compunction affects journalism, where the creation of a biased account is not only tolerated, sometimes it’s encouraged, or the entire purpose of a work (as it was when Reed was giving his account of Ten Days That Shook the World).

Reed even calls out his own bias in the preface of his book. He was a devoted Socialist, and his sympathies were with the reds. That affected his account. Furthermore, while he could comment on the Revolution from his vantage point (embedded with Bolsheviks as he was), he’s not necessarily the most reliable (or informed) narrator of what was happening on the Tsarist side of the conflict, simply by virtue of not having access to that perspective in the moment. That doesn’t change the value of his journalism, but it does impinge it’s value as a comprehensive history.

Well, that seems blatantly inaccurate. There’s an absolute tidal wave of popular history content available for layperson consumption. Forget the books that are published which are aimed at general audiences (of which there are dozens, if not hundreds, every single year), you’ve also got YouTube videos, hobby blog posts, more podcasts than stars in the sky, and so on. These are of varying quality, but so is the academic stuff. Plenty of really great, insightful research is published. And plenty of useless dreck emblematic of academia’s tendency towards chasing one’s own tail is published too. With that being said though, if you’re reading a journal article, i.e. published by academics for academics, you shouldn’t be surprised if the language leans on jargon, even if it isn’t “good writing” necessarily.

Okay? Again, who are you serving by choosing this specific forum to shout that messaging? I know you aren’t OP, so consider that the royal “you”.

It’s just tiresome is all, and I’m on the “boo, capitalism” side of things. It’s like the folks who turn every thread tangentially related to Microsoft into a Linux advertisement. Or the involuntary ejaculation of a vegetarian when the subject of diet comes up. Like, yes, these folks are probably correct about the things they are saying; you’re never going to be wrong to consider the angle being worked by a corp. However, it’s infantilizing to suggest that people are unaware that a corporation wants their money. That’s a given, and without additional commentary, it’s a positively useless statement that only serves to make people tune out the messaging, even in contexts where it IS desirable to bring it up (such as when a company is doing shady shit in pursuit of your money). Releasing a mediocre graphical remaster of a title that people have nostalgia for hardly qualifies as “shady shit” in my book. Lazy, sure, but not shady.

Higher fidelity for sure, as one would expect when comparing games released 10 years apart, but idk if it’s “better” per se. Of course this is totally subjective, but I feel like there’s no style to inZoi, unless we define “generic AI output” as a style.

Thank you for posting explanations in the comments for those of us who are not as up to date on their Roman emperors as good sense would dictate.

Funnily enough, from what I’m reading in a cursory search, the more likely culprit for this phenomenon would be the Volkssturm: the last ditch national militia that the Nazis set up in late 1944. By this point, they were scraping the bottom of the barrel to outfit troops (and to find troops to outfit, for that matter). I didn’t find anything that confirmed on the historical record that any such event occurred, but it seems more likely than the defenders of Stalingrad being without armaments.

Gotta define your parameters better. Anything can kill a horse with one blow, provided adequate swing speed, or provided a sickly enough horse.