Valerian and Laureline seems to fit

Yeah, sure, gamers are politically ignorant and fail to achieve their goals.

But what does any of this have to do with the Pareto principle?

Okay, now I’m extremely confused. How is being aware of the Pareto principle and mentioning it in situations where it applies “political inaction”? And more to the point, how does referencing it in response to reports about game revenue distribution in any way related to a person’s willingness to donate to steamdb?

Alright yeah, I agree with all that, but what does that have to do with the users that responded to reports about how game revenues are distributed by accurately associating it with the Pareto principle?

Theoretically even if the donation needs were met, it would be a small percent of users providing the majority of donations. So I don’t really see how acknowledging the existence of the principle changes whether it’s surprising that no one helped out.

Wait, you link three examples where Lemmy users point out that the Pareto principle explains data showing the way that engagement and revenue are distributed between games on Steam. I’m failing to see how that’s relevant to whether people would be willing to assist or take over the steamdb project. Obviously we can see in hindsight that they didn’t, but how do these links address whether that’s surprising?

I never claimed he said those additional things. You’re the one putting words in his mouth by claiming that he was saying the kids deserved it or that the perpetrators were the good guys. “America deserved X” does not mean “the children involved deserved X” and it does not even mean “the people who did X did a good thing”. It means only “America deserved X”.

I mean “America deserved it” and “those kids didn’t deserve it” and “the people who did it are evil” are all statements that can be true. There is no logical incompatibility there.

If a person blows up a building full of people and one of them was a serial killer, it’s very reasonable to believe “this was a bad act and most of these people didn’t deserve it” and “that one guy definitely did deserve it” at the same time.

He is a fool, and chess is a difficult game, but the reason you’ve cited here is also true for Go Fish.

For those not prepared to replace their OS, I’ve been enjoying this project the last couple weeks.

https://gamenative.app/

And then use this to play it on your Android device: https://gamenative.app/

The price might not be worth it, but would be really funny if Valve just delisted the claimed games in the UK and notified the publishers that they need to remove the claimed music or resolve the licensing issue if they want their game back up. Instead of one tidy lawsuit, suddenly these guys are being contacted by the angry lawyers of hundreds of orgs they have existing contracts with.

Ah, yes in that case it does indeed seem to suggest that an individual member state would be unable to unilaterally apply a stricter right-to-repair standard than what is specified elsewhere in this law.

While that does take some tools off the table for individual states to strengthen right to repair, the intention here does not seem to be a desire to prevent these measures, but to keep them standardized to keep trade between members smooth. Based on other EU legislation I’m aware of I suspect that the repairability standards they’ve laid out are far better than what I would find anywhere on my continent, and member states always have the option to work together to further strengthen these provisions across the Union.

IANAL and I haven’t dug into the text of the law beyond your quote, but I think the key here is “for reasons of non-compliance with national performance requirements relating to product parameters referred to in Annex I covered by performance requirements included in such delegated acts.” To me this is saying “the standards for performance requirements laid out in Annex I override any requirements individual members laws indicate for the same parameters, so those requirements can no longer be used to require products to meet different requirements for these parameters”

So if you are refusing a product from the market for a parameter that is not referred to in Annex I and not a “performance” requirement, then that’s theoretically allowed. Depending on the rest of the text, there’s a good chance that this leaves room for right-to-repair requirements, unless Annex I already has repairability requirements defined, or unless the law is written to define “performance” in a way that includes repairability.

I think this might work better with 4 frames since 3 of these images show items that fall under the same definition for seal since their purpose is to prevent something from getting into/out of somewhere.

It’s the subject of much scholarly debate.

https://youtu.be/L3XnKr0lvDw

“This claim leans heavily into anthropomorphizing non-human things, and that is very rare in rigorous science. Therefore I suspect this is not an accurate representation of rigorous science.”

1. Is clear and valid reasoning

2. Is clearly conveyed by the part you mentioned

3. Presents a straightforward reasoning tool people can apply more generally to help them identify cases where scientific results are likely being misrepresented. Exactly the kind of tool that someone can adopt to become better at applying critical thinking in their life.

4. Is much more useful in a broader set of circumstances than the more specific arguments that appear later in the comment to further deconstruct this specific case.

I mean, he’s walking through his very solid reasoning for why the headline fails the sniff test, despite being a factoid that is frequently repeated through many channels by many people.

People talk all the time about how we need to strengthen critical thinking skills in the general public. Outside of formal training, this is what that looks like: a culture of publicly explaining the thought process that leads you to question something that many others have accepted without question. The knee jerk reaction of criticizing such statements as rude or overly negative is a big part of why these skills have such a hard time spreading, since people who have the skills feel it’s not socially acceptable to share their conclusions.

The comment that sparked this line of discussion was:

“I am all for it… but I wish people would get this passionate about healthcare, the environment, education, housing, and all the other things that are suffering in our society.”

Not deflection, not discouraging the pursuit of this issue, just wishing for a better world where we could get this kind of traction on issues that actually materially affect most people.

“… expecting them to care about others is a losing game.”

Ignoring the fact that many of them are personally impacted by the issues mentioned, I agree, but someone taking a moment to mourn a better world that could have been is pretty normal and human, and just doesn’t seem to warrant the backlash in this thread.

I’m glad that the MAGAs finally found something that made them start to question if they’re being conned, and I relish seeing so many people pouring gas on that fire. But I also agree that it would have been nice if it could have been something more impactful that sparked that reaction.

Establishing clear priorities doesn’t mean that you can only do one thing, it means that if circumstances require you to choose one thing over the other, you have a well reasoned framework to make that decision even if you really want both things.

Also no one was saying, “we need to stop being mad about Epstein so we can focus on healthcare” they were saying “it’s a shame that people didn’t get as mad about healthcare as they did about Epstein when it’s clearly the higher priority problem”. It’s actually them advocating that we should do more than one thing, and that the fact that we’re only doing one thing is made even worse because it’s the thing that’s lower priority.

Right there with you man, it’s hard to imagine that any regular looking white dude in Canada could claim in good faith that they’ve never been in a conversation where they witnessed a bunch of similar looking dudes go hardcore mask-off because they thought the coast was clear.