100% of the time “think of the kids” is used, it’s because they cannot come up with a coherent reason without pulling that escape cord.

You either didn’t understand my comment or whatever the case is here.

Please, feel free to explain what you meant.

I am saying that your or others gender should not be a factor deciding how games are developed.

Yes and you’ll see my removal comment states “‘games where it doesn’t belong’ you don’t get to decide what an artist does with their art”. This was true. This is true. Your statement above is clearly dictating that gender should not be a factor (or sexual identity, or frankly any other identity such as race or ability). If an artist decides it should be a factor, then that is up to them. You don’t get to dictate what the art should be.

Hey there,

No one said you had to enter this thread. Ignore it if you don’t want to participate in the discussion. Don’t force your opinion on others. Queer folks aren’t going to feel safe in this space if you kick down their door and tell them to shut up.

This in no way surprises me. Things aren’t bad enough for me to leave yet, but if I could snap my fingers and have my partners in another country and my property sold I probably would with little hesitation. But the social ties are hard to leave and owning property makes it complicated.

Yea fair there is definitely the sportswashing angle on this, but they are absolutely leveraging debt for this purchase which they will put on the company. Their deck also talks a ton about AI, which is where the AI/stripping angle comes from. As to whether they can just ignore the debt because oil money, that’s I suppose another question entirely.

Actually, it’s pretty clear they are planning on completely gutting this company. They’re taking on debt to buy this deal, which they will put on the company. Their pitch is to eliminate jobs with AI (which they probably know won’t work) which means they’ll cut most of the staff and “replace” it with AI, likely contracts with companies they own so that they can continue to leech off whatever income comes in from game sales. The company will continue to churn out trash and make some money by repeating last year’s sports game this year but now with AI coding until it eventually declares bankruptcy and is either auctioned off to be stripped for what’s left of its parts or simply shutters forever.

given that there was no equivalent when I was a kid

inside jokes

Fascinating article. I don’t really agree with half of what he finds aesthetically pleasing, but I do approve of the idea that it would be nice to have a little bit more diversity in exterior appearance of high density housing buildings.

hey there, removing this because its not a gaming article, feel free to repost it in a more appropriate community

wild they managed to keep it under wraps for so long given its so soon

Sept 4 like, 2 weeks from now? or 1 year and 2 weeks lol

FYI this was already posted to technology, here.

Without a functioning government that actually prioritizes public health, there is no ridding ourselves of either. Towards the bottom of the article is a link to a document put together by the Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Lab in partnership with the Southern Poverty Law Center titled “Not Just a Joke” which helps to explain the problem, frame it through a public health lens, and provide broad tips for intervention at various levels of social support. Like most public health crises, there is not a simple “answer” to a complex problem and the best solution is to provide resources to a variety of places recognizing that each of them touch lives in unique ways and that each of them will be able to help affect a positive change on some individuals based on who those individuals might be willing to listen to and trust.

gpt-4o was also used, check the paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2504.18412

@alyaza@beehaw.org might know of some additional spaces

And sadly it certainly doesn’t stop when you pass the 18 mark. Some minor forms of sexual assault seem to possibly even increase because you now have access to places like bars and clubs (although I do wonder if major forms increase too because these are places you can get roofied fairly easily).

How would you propose adapting to this? Do you believe it’s the teacher’s responsibility to enact this change rather than (for example) a principal or board of directors?

To be clear, I’m not blaming anyone here. I think it’s a tough problem and frankly, I’m not a professional educator. I don’t think it’s the teacher’s responsibility and I don’t blame them for a second for deciding that nah, this isn’t worth my time.

This article is about PhD students coasting through their technical writing courses using chatbots. This is an environment/application where the product (writing a paper) is secondary to the process (critical analysis), so being able to use a chatbot is missing the point.

Completely agreed here. I would have just failed the students for cheating if it were me. But to be clear, I was talking in more the abstract, since the article is written more about the conundrum and the pattern than it is about a solution. The author decided to quit, not to tackle the problem, and I was interested in hearing them follow that thread a bit further as they’re the real expert here.

While I think there may be more to pull apart here, I think we’re missing the necessary context to weigh in any deeper. How many assignments there are, what the assignments look like, whether they feel like just busy work, how much else is going on in the students life, etc. I think it would be telling (albeit not all that surprising as some are still just looking for a degree at that level) if they were using chatgpt on their doctorate, but even in that case I would perhaps argue that learning to use chatgpt tactfully or in ways which aren’t the direct writing might be useful skills to have for future employment.

Is it because they don’t give a shit? Or are the stakes too high and they don’t trust their own abilities? Do they have the time to even try between their work shifts?

Likely a mix of all these factors and more. I think the author fails to critically examine how much skill is necessary for the average person and sets a bar of mastery for which many of her students are clearly uninterested in clearing.

While I don’t say this as a criticism of the author, it is worth pointing out that she’s also failed to adapt to the new technologies. She talks about how teachers will need to adapt to the new tools but ultimately places the blame on the students rather than reconsidering who her audience is. I’m guessing these are not individuals who are honestly pursuing a career in writing as those individuals would likely be much more engaged on the subject and willing to grow their skills (unless it’s purely a means to an end- the acquisition of any degree). Using a tool which obscures stylistic choices may be “good enough” for these individuals and being able to accommodate the use of this tool effectively would necessarily require a shift in teaching style which gets them asking questions of the output. She recognizes this, but rather than questioning her teaching style it’s written off as a failure of the student’s ability to withstand the ‘temporary discomfort of not knowing’.

Great read! Thank you