Basman

It's funny, because degrees are at the same time both required in a lot of ways but at the same time highly over-evaluated relative to what it actually does. Probably due to over-supply of workers relative to available jobs. About 80% of a degrees value is signaling. It's the main reason to get one, to not get filtered. Degree filtering is insanely practical for businesses swamped with applications. I think this is quiet problematic for society, and not just because I'm salty. We are getting more educated than before just to get a job. We are working harder, delaying adulthood for longer (hello fertility) just to stand still in terms of socio-economics (hello Starbucks employee with a masters degree). And higher education has failed meritocratically for the most part, as class is the biggest predictor of educational attainment (even when it's free). Which isn't really surprising, considering that university as an institution has always been about reproducing elite status from the start, back when they produced priests and shit. And it doesn't even create workers that necesarilly benefit society that much either, outside of certain high impact roles. Like, during covid we saw who we consider "essential workers". Not the office rats with their fancy degrees. Bus drivers and grocery clerks contributes more to society than most people with degrees. And we look down on them. I've thought about this a lot.

I studied philosophy for a year and ixd for about one semester before dropping out. Absolutely hated it. Never really wanted to go in the first place. Never believed in the promise of university and thought of it as over-hyped. Still do. Studying academic philosophy did equip me with some rationality skills, though I haven't retained an iota of philosophical history, which was about 70% of the degree. Like Kant and shit. Not that I care to remember. If anything, philosophical history disgusts me. It's a waste of time except for the soft rationality skills you might learn. Academic philosophy as a discipline is very much up it's own ass. Correction: academic philosophy is more like 90% philosophical history. It's largely a scholarly degree. That's exactly what people don't want to do. University is the closest we have to a rail road in life. Get a degree then work for someone else. Boom.

I mean yeah, but also, you can't know for certain with our current evidence what went through her head exactly. Best you can do is estimate, and I personally estimate that she's culpable, IE. she knew it was wrong.

Betting on AI right now is very bold.

I haven't gone terminally online in depth, but there's too much doubt about her insanity to confidently say she didn't know what she was doing as far as I can see. It looks obvious to me, idk.

Jury left basically guessing at Lindsay's mental state during the killing. And there are no good options for a verdict. Probably why insanity should be proved as opposed to vice versa.

The whole case boils down to whether or not she was psychosic during the killing, which basically we only have her word for. There's no conclusive evidence of psychosis. Massachusetts law is rather binary when it comes to insanity as culpability has to be proven beyound a reasonable doubt and that you can be aqcuited just on doubt of one's sanity. Your either guilty or not. Ideally, a sort of compromise would be ideal in my opinion, like guilty but insane, but that's not on the table. This article discusses how Massachusetts law is outdated: https://www.thefp.com/p/law-inadequate-lindsay-clancy-trial

Nordic model is just a progressive twist on when religious states ban prostitution. The goal is essentially the same, to make the problem go away. They don't want prostitution to be a thing in the first place, but with a layer of plausible compassion. It fails because it's wrong on multiple levels. It's impossible to ban prostitution entirely. It's a form of labour like any other. Women are fully capable of choosing sex work. The belief that women can't choose to become sex workers willingly on their own acoord is sexist to a mythological degree. Laughably wrong. Ensuring labor rights is a proven way to tackle fairness, abuse and safety for all types of work in general. There's no reason why sex work should be any different.

There's some truth to it because the overall market is smaller than if it would be legal. Germany is pretty bad with trafficking I believe. You need to regulate the market itself with labor rights as a start at least. But I always felt that the nordic model was motivated more by puritanical ideas of sex and a woman's worth more than anything else.

Nordic model is just a soft ban on prostitution. On a side note, I've started to really notice this sexist cultural attitude of women not being capable of being responsible for their actions. It's silly. If you don't think women choose to become prostitutes you haven't met any hookers. It's telling when the le feminist are the managerial class HR types in that video.

Anonymity makes you less personable. You have to just about overcompensate to overcome that, which isn't realistic to expect of people.

No it wouldn't 😂 You'd have a nice deep discussion in person and then go straight back to arguing about women on the forum.

I think around 200 is the upper limit. Lots of generational games where made with around 200 devs, like Skyrim and Halo.

Gameplay looks like Uncharted. Nothing to cream your pants over.

Because all that matters is good graphics apparently. Gameplay looks cookie cutter and the humor is lacking from what I see. I'll buy it for a dollar 7 years from now.