While protobuf comes with the strict parser built in, it's certainly possible to work with JSON in such a way that it is effectively strictly typed and versioned. These factors aren't really a "key difference" between the two formats, so much as an ergonomic one, imo

The Stanley Parable definitely plays with non-euclidean and liminal spaces - the room in the screenshot being one such example.

It does, but its main focus is ludonarrative dissonance, which is why Control would be a better example (along with games that specifically invoke Backrooms lore, like POOLS)

I was actually a little surprised there was no mention of Escape the Backrooms, although I suppose The Stanley Parable is a better-known game.

Reminds me how much fun Superliminal was. Might have to get that another play through. :D

Everyone who uses Uber is voluntarily doing business with a company that does this. When was the last time you took an Uber?

A really annoying thing I've run into is that lots of libraries/frameworks/etc will have shortcuts to introduce this delay, to avoid "pop-in" of lazy-loaded stuff.

Like, yeah, pop-in looks a little weird, but suddenly APIs are making that one Mass Effect elevator into a first-class feature...

You can read privacy policies, terms of service and data sharing agreements today. Do you?

They dont list the column names.

And when an industry at large is using RealPage for Wages, those two numbers may become increasingly similar

The upshot of this is that women with a genetic advantage are banned, but men with a genetic advantage aren't; is this not straightforwardly sex discrimination?

No. Nobody is banned from the "men's" category, including unambiguously cisgender women of completely unambiguous sexual characteristics. They just wouldn't stand a chance, practically speaking (for example, in the 100 metre sprint, the all-time women's world record time would not meet the qualification standard). There was already "sex discrimination" in the fact of the women's category existing in the first place; this was done as a pragmatic matter so that the world has the opportunity to celebrate peak female physical achievements.

The debate is really around how the handling of intersex and transgender athletes intersects with the original purpose of creating a separate category for women.

>Nobody is banned from the "men's" category, including unambiguously cisgender women of completely unambiguous sexual characteristics.

This is exactly my point. Men with unusual characteristics are celebrated, but women with unusual characteristics are excluded into a non-competitive category.

You can justify it if you'd like, but in a practical sense, no man will ever get to the Olympics only to be turned away because they don't genetically qualify for competition. This is an indignity reserved only for women.

Adults can't compete in kids' categories either, not even in boys' or young men'. What an indignity, to be forced to compete fairly. Womp-womp.

Respectfully, I don't think you're engaging with what I'm actually saying here.

No adults are training their way to the kid-lympics and then getting cut open and surprised by the count of the rings.

Also, the idea of "fairness" is overstated, a naturalist just-so fallacy. Is it "fair" that some male athletes are taller or shorter than others, or have other genetic advantages, for example?

You can do that, but the companies and institutions built on Windows will still keep paying whatever it costs for Active Directory, and thus all the bundled software that comes with it.

Individual consumer action does not a monopoly break.

aside from gedit and geany and nano and emacs and notepad and vsc and notepad++ and sublime text and...

It's very much a rock-and-a-hard-place situation. "It's an import", so they have to respond to it like they'd respond to imports...

But unlike physical imports, there's a sense that blocking these imports is an affront to base philosophical freedom in a way that prohibiting physical imports isn't.

> there's a sense that blocking these imports is an affront to base philosophical freedom in a way that prohibiting physical imports isn't.

It would serve UK legislators well to explore that tingling sense some more before they consider any further efforts in this direction, but that's just my two pence.