Critics are not qualified to tell me what I should watch towards developing my own character. The disconnect between what they push as best and what audiences like as good, illustrates the postmodern critic's lack of relevance. Critics are pushers of entitled cynicism and ideology, not meaningful content.
But critics should be experts in the field (of movies), and at the very least have seen it all. Therefore they can commentate on what's been done before and what is actually new.
> Critics are not qualified to tell me what I should watch towards developing my own character.
Well yes since everyone is different critics can never satisfy that for everyone.
Requiring to have seen it all is a big problem if you identify as a critic, in all senses of the words. It's easy to be pulled in by irrelevant novelty that is not meaningful to viewers, or become disenchanted and find your critical sensibilities turn against what viewers find meaningful. There's an ideological and philosophical component here that is at the rift between critics and viewers.
Truthful description of relevant info is most important. The constructed profile of the person I'm talking to online is uninteresting to me. You might actually be a dog for all I know. If you want me to play along so you're never confronted with being identified as a dog... then I'm not sure I'm really doing you a favor. Maybe the kindest thing is not to play along with your language game.
> Maybe the kindest thing is not to play along with your language game.
My comment was in response to someone indicating that certain European languages forced you to know the gender of the person you were speaking to. So, the "language game" is already ongoing. This is why people have constructed careful expansions to the grammar, to make language non-genderized.
What is the alternative? To assume everyone identifies as a male?
To understand that terms like mankind already refer to all humanity is a small part of it. Another part is that communication serves us in finding suitable mates and manipulation of language towards social goals is likely to have outcomes that are eventually counter to what is meaningful to us as individuals.
I'd also disagree that expanding a language carefully is what is being done here. It is unlikely towards the goal of expressing ourselves more clearly.
This is exactly why people are aiming to change this forced behavior. Language reflects society and the only reason why male terms are considered "general" by some parts of the population is because men for centuries repressed the female populations and the non-binary.
this is unfortunately one of those times where "I have no opinion" is an opinion
What I am saying is that taking a stance of assuming people identifying as male is an opinion - which is quickly become a minority stance for good reasons.
Misgendering is a huge trigger for a lot of people, and considered a "micro agression" if you are familiar with that term. This is why most people go out of their way, just like if an ethnicity says that a certain word is a slur (i.e. c-word for Asians, or even worse for Black or African Americans) then people stop using that term.
Just like a racial minority, we must in my opinion - and most other people in the US - sit down a listen to their concerns. A male dominated society has for centuries built stigma and downplayed the significance of females and non-binary folks, such that it has even spread into the language itself.
Why does language matter to you? Is it a tool to entrenching your identity and present the world as a battleground between your groups? Or does language serve you as an individual to have dialog and develop? If you choose resentment then don't pull others along with you. What meaning does language have?
As someone living in the third world let me assure you those living in poverty have more pressing challenges for themselves and their children. They are fighting raw nature daily for survival and your attempt to redirect attention away from, say, business and work creation to your "end of the world (maybe)" fears is not going to go over well.
What I don't understand is your lack of doubt that they would (or should) care. The conviction is something analogous to religion.
Framing the dissenting opinion as equivalent to "aliens did it" is exactly the problem. When the opinion turns out correct are you going to continue making those categorization errors? What lead to that mistake in the first place?
> Framing the dissenting opinion as equivalent to "aliens did it" is exactly the problem.
You made a category error by somehow replacing "opinions which are obvious nonsense" with "any dissenting opinion whatsoever".
Nobody but you suggested that. The claim was that you cannot say anything at all about any "dissenting opinion" unless you are 100% sure you are correct. That is nonsense. You can obviously say something about some of them, while not being confident enough to rule out some others.
What do you do with opinions that you think are wrong? Do you place them all in an "obviously nonsense" category and slap a misinformation sticker on it so others are not tempted to look at it? Because that is what happened here. What do you do when it turns out some of those things were true? Do you continue to curate the world with willful blindness?
I don't see where you said "no, you don't" so it's unclear what you mean here. Did you mean that labelling something as misinformation is unwise? Because then I agree with you.
Is that a lot from Google's perspective? If apps follow some power law distribution it might only be worth providing human support to a very limited number of them.
Customer support is provided for sub $20 items from e commerce sites who don't have Google's market cap. Not to mention that a customer support agent's time isn't exactly worth hundreds of dollars an hour.
It depends on how narrowly focused Google's strategy and commitment to reliable income is.
Linearly scaling up on human support agents doesn't look aligned with an AI driven strategy to enable income that is only coming from their advertising services.
Google Services generated $69.4 billion, or about 92% of total revenue, in Q4 FY 2021. Advertising revenue, at $61.2 billion, comprised 88% of the segment's revenue. The segment's revenue is up 31.3% compared to Q4 FY 2020. Google Services posted operating income of $26.0 billion, up 36.3% from the year-ago quarter.
This figure surpassed Alphabet's total consolidated operating income of $21.9 billion due to operating losses in the other two segments as well as unallocated corporate costs. Google Services is thus the only segment that currently makes positive contributions to Alphabet's overall operating income
So Google Play can only exist in ways where it supports advertising. Sales are trivial in comparison. "Delighting" every app publisher is simply distracting.
These horror stories would mostly come from publishers that rely on the source of income, from whom the yearly Google play is likely to be at least a few thousands. There's no excuse to not involve a human in a decision as drastic as account termination.
The figures include sales of apps, in-app purchase and *app store ads*.
I would also prefer that Google have more tolerable support for publishers (and users), but it looks like those at the helm might be thinking it's irresponsible to see publishers as important customers. The publishers are not the ones providing the vast majority of the revenue - that seems to be advertiser.
The attention economy is addictive for those pushing it as well.
Edit: where can I get good Mercurial hosting? F this.