To be fair, back in the day you could get better results by relying on Google with site:foobar and the Boolean/“power user” stuff. A lot of built-in search boxes on sites were a bit dodgy, or at least less flexible than AND/OR/NOT and other “power user tricks”.
Of course, these days those seem to be ignored wholesale and even “verbatim quotes” are an utter crapshoot, this was back when Google didn’t fucking blow.
Fite me irl
Roasted/broiled/pan fried sprouts are amazing, though.
What should be crossed out is the rutabaga.
Dpad for games that were intended for dpad, analog if the game was intended for analog.
Analog for dpad games feels awkward in my experience, and dpad for analog games is not even an option.
Removed by mod
This place is noticeably more anticorporate - which makes sense because corporations tend to be dicks - and leftist. Enshittification is a fairly apt term for what goes on.
handwaved it away as perfectly normal and expected
“Yes, but space is boring and therefore it’s realistic” is still one of my favorite excuses for a game.
Nothing at all, if it’s been maintained and “upkept” much better than theirs has. But, y’know.
Starfield is starting to seem pretty spackled together, and the engine was already sort of infamous for bugs. It’s not just BSW being sloppy about content (although they are), it’s also the engine and tooling. The CKs tend to look… grim.
What do you mean, “nowadays”? Mobile games always sucked.
Yes - unexpectedly, on a game that’s pretty much a decade old. Modders are not expected to maintain stuff that long, because when does that ever happen?
Then it’s just… badly executed at that.
It’s so much waffle it sorta doesn’t even matter. Super dodgy site.
AI generated or just crap? You decide!
“You’re welcome” was always taught to me as the proper thing, but sounds slightly stilted. They express the same sentiment, roughly, but “[it was] no problem” is arguably clearer about it. I personally just think it’s a slightly “nicer” nuance.
Of course, sometimes maybe it actually was a problem, and then I’d only say it if going out of my way to be nice about it.
I’d assume they were trying to pimp me to some buzzwordoholic. I don’t see any reasonable interpretation of it that’s insulting, though.
Having it be (perceived as) the norm is absolutely stupid - but the issue is with ignorant management and recruiters, not people who get into entire stacks honestly for fun or profit.
I was just expressing surprise at exactly how shit this health-related, science-related advice was, and consequently what a bad idea listening to it would be. It is not my field, as stated. Do I need to post a treatise to be able to say “whoa, that’s not how good advice looks”?
Sorry you didn’t find it constructive, I don’t find this productive or constructive or any other metaphor either. Guess you can’t please everyone.
The advice is wank, from people who don’t know jack about this. And yes, I know - I don’t, either. That is why I don’t try to answer questions on hugely complicated fields I don’t know. Almost nobody even considered posting a source for anything and that is a huge red flag in a question that is basically about science.
Given that the advice is off-topic, wrong, potentially risky or some combination, I am not wrong about the general sentiment. If you wanted me to phrase it some other way, maybe you could’ve been more, uh, constructive.
After all, commenting “this is the pure dietary sugar of discussions” and then walking away is the pure dietary sugar of discussions.
Holy crap, don’t get your dietary advice from this place apparently.
Bottom? This is par for the course.
Depending on what you mean by respect and opinion, yes. If you’re discussing an opinion then someone is probably going to expect you to explain why, that’s a logical point to cover in any such discussion. Even if it’s subjective. If it’s an opinion on something objective, then there’s an actual burden of “proof” and possible consequences, and the stakes rise accordingly.
There aren’t many reasons to “properly” respect an opinion that is irrational (not just subjective), factually wrong (“interpretation” only goes so far), dishonest, or anything like that. I’m skeptical of endorsing any opinion until I know why it is what it is.
Ha! Get rekt, Meta.
“site” does work still, I think, just plus a lot of irrelevant drivel - standard Google fare, you see it on Youtube too.
I’d consider the most basic case to be, specifically, the “quotes for verbatim results”, which definitely do not work anymore. Neither does + for a positively (hue hue) required term, a close second.