Yggstyle

Sorry, were you quoting someone? I can’t see that anywhere else… but perhaps I missed it.

I’ve had this discussion quite a bit, and it’s tough to break the 77 cents on the dollar and whatnot rhetoric, because those people are convinced that a man and a woman doing the same job with equal experience, the woman just automatically makes on average 23% less than a man. And it’s easy to prove that wrong, and entirely misses the point.

With the pervasiveness of social media, outrage culture, and, frankly, the steadily increasing difficulty to finding credible sources of information… it’s just far too easy to just revert to our baser “tribalistic” tendencies and blame someone and get mad. Toss into the mix the fact that a lot of these topics are sensitive issues and boy howdy EVERYTHING is a powderkeg and ONLY black and white despite evidence to the contrary.

[…] Now, I imagine a lot has changed in 23 years, so maybe that mentality has changed, but if all else is fixed and there is a “pay gap” based on choice like that… that’s not a problem that needs to be solved.

Agreed on this point. Different strokes for different folks.

So to recap, we need to stop talking about cents on the dollar and start talking about making rejoining the workforce more available and appealing after having babies, and giving dads more time with their kids to let their wives work.

I’d really like to see a world where it’d be possible for both parents to get leave, be able to work part time while not being put in a financially dire situation, and still have access to crucial things like affordable healthcare and insurance. A pipedream - without question… but one can hope.

Don’t be caught being evil…

As I recall there have been a number of studies done on this… and they fall into the “technically true” if you looked specifically at gender within a given work pool and discounted all other factors then this is the answer you arrive at.

Unfortunately, every single one of these that I have personally read … all suffered from the fact that other factors play a part in that somewhat disingenuous number. If roles are factored in - these numbers begin to fall apart. As mentioned elsewhere in this thread: women have maternity leave… and following that can look to exit the workforce or move to part time. Compensation can be different between these categories. Continuing down this path: in a household that is dual income - it has been traditional to see the woman leave the workforce for child rearing opposed to the man. So looking at a given workforce, specifically at a given role in that group may still have a disparity in experience and time in the position (and thus compensation.) Lastly there is the bane of all - starting compensation negotiations. It is my understanding that generally men are more aggressive / assertive during this phase in the hiring process.

In short: this is stupidly difficult to generate fair and correct numbers for this type of metric and RARELY does it behoove the party running that inquiry to get the details right. The more accurate the results: the less sensational the number. Now to be clear: I do believe that there are cases where there are unfair practices taking place - but they are the exception… not the rule.

At the end of the day - if we made it commonplace to be acceptable to discuss compensation… And put some more workers rights laws into place… We’d have a system where everyone could have a fair shake in a job, equally.

I’d be happy to be proven wrong with some numbers that have actually factored in these variables. With regard to OPs statement: that number looks strikingly familiar to one horrifyingly old and incorrectly run survey.

Land Before Time 28 is looking kinda weak guys.

Funny how that works. ;)

Nintendo isn’t just the nestle of companies to users… they are the same or worse to their own.

I’ve seen people lose teams over errant comments about a novel idea for the IP they would love to see happen, or maybe even be developing as a passion project, purged for the notion that they were anything more than drones.

It’s a disgusting work culture taking advantage of bright eyed developers that grew up with fond memories of the brand. I genuinely love some of the IP and worlds made by the developers - but I will never, ever, spend a fucking penny on that company until it is changed.

mmmm banana bombs, holy hand grenades, and those cursed shopping levels * shudder *

It’s both.

Yes. Without question.

And some CEOs are FAR worse than others.

But rarely better than the worst person you know.

Look I don’t fault developers for kissing the ring. I know and have spoken with multiple devs at different Nintendo affiliated companies and they don’t enjoy it either but it lets them make the games they love for the people that they want to entertain.

I can’t say I support hating a full group of people because that’s not great either. “… except for the Amish but it’ll never get back to them” - John Pinette

I see Nintendo emulation / mod chipping / console hacking I support it. Toxic company deserves a return in kind for its abuse of its fanbase.

Meanwhile StarCraft, one of the most pervasive rts for its time and in the PC gaming sphere in general … let you have multiple people play multiplayer on a single disk. Offline. It’s kinda like it advertised itself and people went out to buy it… which influenced more people… who bought it… gasp.

Mindblowing.

Did they walk back their recent less than well liked choice to get into the same pool as HP? They were my go-to recommendation for the longest time.

Let’s just nip the speculation in the bud here first: in a shock to maybe one person - he was not being “douchey.”

I won’t rehash what has already been said by others, nor what I have already responded to but I’d like to respond directly to this:

it’s a shame that it seems to be attracting the same crowd that made virtual interaction so unappealing in Reddit.

It’s you. You’re that crowd. You came into a thread with a non-constructive, do nothing, pedantic, petty, low effort, call-it-what-you-will shit comment… got called out on it: and are trying to blame literally everyone but yourself for your poor choice rather than gracefully taking your lumps and moving on. Ironically, OP made the far more high minded choice and did something that improved the post in general. Without complaint.

This isn’t reddit. You are correct. You are getting down voted because we don’t want reddit here either. Be the improvement you want to see or don’t let the door hit you on your way out.

Guy was going for a cheap shot and hoping to get a pat on the back for it I guess? The mental gymnastics he’s going through explaining himself is borderline legendary.

So let me get this straight:

It’s perfectly acceptable for you to make an assessment of a word and it’s meaning from a post not your own - but utterly incomprehensible that we might make a similar assessment of literally the same word from your post… in exactly the same way.

In what way are people misinterpreting you and being mean while, somehow, your actions which effectively are identical (inference not withstanding) - are justified and erm… kind?

It’s rare I will bust out a “my dude” this frequently… but: my dude do you own a mirror?

Almost verbatim what I was planning on saying. Just 0 awareness apparently. This one may be a lost cause, though.

I really don’t see how “lol” would mean that in this context but ok. Even with the context to me I was more like “idc” or “this isn’t important”. I mean, if they wanted to say “whoops”, they could’ve said “whoops”. […]

Semantics. Regardless of how you (or anyone else) read the first word: the following statement provided the appropriate result and explanation. The case was opened and closed. A positive outcome was achieved (accreditation of the author.)

Returning to my original assertion: what was the purpose of your statement? Your statement lacked context. If people misunderstood you (I don’t think they did) … one word doesn’t exactly leave things terribly clear does it? This isn’t a they (op) thing.

Regarding your statement about language: When I am in an area where I don’t speak the local language - I rely more heavily on context to fill in the gaps in my knowledge. I believe that to be fairly standard. This wasn’t, by my assessment, a situation where someone could be misinterpreted unless the remainder of their statement was disregarded. Could I be off base? Sure - but I genuinely doubt I am.

If it was a single word, in a vacuum - sure. But the literal following statement was “it was a cross post but I did the right thing and broke it to fix the problem” sorta applied some context to the prior word.

I read it as “ah shit, yeah, haha lemme get that” and it appears others did as well.

Context matters. So yeah - you can go on thinking you were slighted here over your “observation” with no context… or maybe take this as a “maybe process the whole statement before reacting” critique … which is what it was intended to be.

As opposed to, say, highlighting a single word as a reply implying some form of wrongdoing? Or is that less douchey because it’s like a double negative?