- 0 Posts
- 37 Comments
Tikka Masala is an Indian-Inspired dish which was invented in the UK by people with Indian cultural heritage. That’s about as concise a description as you can get without running into difficulties of definition - there’s no consistent way of defining what “being a dish” means without running into contradictions.
In fact General Tso’s is the perfect counter-example: Multiple Chinese people have told me they enthusiastically disown General Tso’s Chicken and explicitly call it American food. So if we say “a dish belongs to a country if it’s invented there”, then Tikka Masala is British (which I agree “feels” wrong); but if we say “a dish belongs to a country if it was inspired by the cuisine of that country”, then General Tso’s is Chinese, which, apparently not!
And that’s without even considering the question of how far “back” you should go with inspiration - what if a dish was inspired by how the Indians used food they got from the Persians who traded it with the Chinese - is it Indian food or Chinese food? (Idk if that’s historically nonsense, but you get my point) Why is the most-recent ancestor more important than the environment of creation?
I feel like you’re using “supercede” differently to the rest of us. You’re getting a hostile reaction because it sounded like you’re saying that EM is no longer at all useful because it has been obsoleted (superceded) by QM. Now you’re (correctly) saying that EM is still useful within its domain, but continuing to say that QM supercedes it. To me, at least, that’s a contradiction. QM extends EM, but does not supercede it. If EM were supercedes, there would be no situation in which it was useful.
“X depends on or is built up on Y” does not imply “X is Y”. Concepts, laws, techniques, etc. can depend or be higher-order expressions of QM without being QM. If you started asking a QM scientist about tensile strength or the Mohs scale they would (rightly) be confused.
With the jobmarket the way it is?
Historically awful? Don’t get me wrong, the advice is still solid, but this was a weird way to preface it - it’s the hardest time in my 10-year career to “just find a new job”.
111·2 years agoYes, the same EU. The fact that it’s considering some poor choices doesn’t detract from the fact that it’s actions thus far have been positive and deserve appreciation. Real Life doesn’t split people neatly into heroes and villains.
There is nothing inherently wrong with DLC, and I’m tired of pretending that there is. If you think the base game is over-priced, then by all means complain about that - but if both the base game and the DLC are worth the price they’re asking for it, then there is no harm done (and some advantage) in having modular buying options.
Sure, because something so egregious would definitely show up in a Google search for “Zach Weinersmith sweatshop”, right?
Unless…you’re exaggerating on the Internet to stir up outrage?
Gentlemen! My fellow whites! Let’s raise a glass to this pyramid of money. The foundation of which was built upon our favorite pastime: f*cking the poor!
I wonder if those same people would think the guy who delivered the series’ opening monologue was the good guy?
They make smaller games, still charge full prices, then make DLCs that are relatively small and chare a lot for them.
So you agree with me, then, that the problem is publishers charging a disproportionate price for the amount of content being purchased?
OK - still, though, if every component (base game or DLC) that you buy is worth the money you pay for it, then what’s the problem?
Eh - I did, but other commenters pointed out that it’s not always possible to pass them depending on road conditions, so I’m with them.
Gotcha! All those “reasons why it might be bad/harmful/awkward to be stuck behind an RV” make sense, but what I was missing was that these RVs might be on roads where passing them isn’t possible. Other commenters have clarified that. Thanks!
Ah, I was imagining a big American freeway like you see on TV. Thanks, that makes sense!
Thank you for answering the question rather than downvoting!
I take your point, but the reasoning “this person has already demonstrated themselves willing, able, and motivated to breach a major social contract related to your safety; therefore I fear that they may try to breach more” is not unreasonable. The proportion of “home invaders who are also (willing to be) murderers” is gonna be way larger than the proportion of willing murderers among the general population.
My unpopular opinion is that DLC is not, in and of itself, bad. If you don’t want it, don’t buy it! If you do want it - great, no problem! In a world without DLC, you either have to buy the whole game, or not. If you tried it and didn’t like it, you have wasted the whole price of the game. Whereas in a DLC system, you’ve spent the price of the base game, but that’s effectively just a fraction of the total game price. You risked less.
What is a problem - and what I think most people who think they’re mad about DLC are actually mad about - is charging a price that isn’t commensurate with the amount of content you get. If a full game is “worth” $60, and it’s split up into a $20 base game and 4 $10 DLCs - great, everyone is (or, should be!) happy. But if the publisher charges $60 for $20-worth of base game and then charges for DLC on top, you should be pissed - but you should still be pissed about that mispricing even if the DLC didn’t exist. Yes, DLC is the reason why that pricing strategy is adopted - but that doesn’t mean that DLC itself is inherently bad. There are possible implementations that are not flawed.
Irony, you say?