So now the dems endorse the radical rights position on the border. You don't see how that's an issue?
Equating "letting the opposition party fuck themselves as they try to pass a bill THEY don't even want" to actively endorsing extreme policy is hyperbole.
At a very surface level you're correct, but using that to state that the entire democratic party has abandoned their morals is absurd.
As someone who deals with business analytics/ budgeting, "not meeting sales expectations" is a 1:1 translation to "bad sales." Sony has R&D, manufacturing, and other "static" costs that need to be recouped with more unit sales--decent isn't enough when you're balancing everything around great.
(This translates to much of peak-covid -> "post"-covid business decision backlash. So much short-term thinking based on the economy being temporarily on crack with everyone at home).
I think they were commenting on how people seem to be zealots for Firefox on Lemmy, despite having some (reasonable) flaws. Despite this news, I'd bet a lot of them will continue. Not a pro-Chrome stance by any means.
(I had to block the Firefox and Linux subs day 1 because of how much anti-Chrome/ anti-Windows I saw).
That's what the [sic] is for. It's showing "here's what the person literally said, to make sure we're not misquoting them."
It's standard practice, as "stepping up and taking charge" would mean substituting someone else's words for your own, which is a slippery slope. "Oh he said X, but meant Y, so I'll write that instead" can very easily be abused by people actively looking to misrepresent other's words.
Source: BA Journalism, who had to use [sic] when quoting non-native English speakers (was part of an immigration story). Whenever possible, I'd try to clarify/ correct mid-interview: "oh, you said A, but I think you might've meant B. Is that correct?" That way, you know for a fact it's still their words.
2001 + 19 = 2020. Typos can be overcome using context clues.
You're making a lot of worst-possible-assumptions about my character based on a throwaway comment on how fake awards aren't that important. Go outside.
Bro it is truly, truly not that deep.
Award shows have been on the way out for well over a decade, and have been purely marketing tools for even longer.
More importantly, the devs who got their games nominated likely saw sales spike, which means more players enjoying the things they created, and they were properly compensated for their work. That means way more than a BS award that sits on a shelf.
It's "undermining gaming" to give award show results so much weight when we know how biased they are.
Considering the awards are nigh-useless anyway, sacrificing some "credibility" to call out shitty business seems worth it imo.
It's not like it's a "haha look how silly this is" joke--it's a "you all fucked this up though for the public to hate you, do better" joke.
"That's your problem" is a terrible way to get people to support policy. These are real, valid concerns that many people simply can't deal with without other systems in place that currently don't exist.
This type of "fuck any gradual change, revolution now" is just armchair anarchy pushed by kids who don't face financial pressure.
Feel that. The hivemind on Lemmy can be brutal (coming from Reddit), since it's a smaller community.