That is not a good analogy. Games are built using programming languages. JavaScript is a programming language.
Cars are built using metals (usually steel). A better analogy would be like trying to build a car out of iron, a really heavy metal. Since js/node is very resource heavy requiring transpilation/etc…
It's not a perfect analogy, but none of my comments are directed at the use of JS for a game, it's a fine choice. It's the use of Next.js that's the issue, it's a framework for server side rendering of HTML. It serves no benefit if your goal is to make a 3D game, it only adds overhead. If he had not been using it he would have realised there's a few bundlers out there that are far better than what Next.js dev server provided at the time.
I mean it’s pretty straightforward - due to trauma over her past experiences with sexual assault at the hands of cis men, she now sees trans women as a facade used by predatory cis men to sexually assault cis women in bathrooms and locker rooms and other segregated spaces.
To her, trans women are really cis men pretending to be women, to make it easier to rape them. There’s kind of no nice way of saying it.
It’s textbook transphobia / queer bashing. Fear of sexual assault at the hands of queer people is probably one of the most basic reasons to justify this particular brand of bigotry. “I don’t hate queers, I’m just concerned for the safety of -“ take your pick - women, children, sometimes even men. For JK it’s women.
Ah but what if I don’t subscribe to your belief system?
‘Man’ js the word tradition taught you to describe an adult person who is male - but what does that mean, really? Is it a person with a penis? If a man’s penis is removed, what is he then? Prefer his genitals at birth, maybe? What if he’s born without a penis? Intersex people exist. Chromosomes perhaps? There are all sorts of extant combinations beyond XX and XY.
The real question you should be asking is, why does it matter? how does this belief in men and women serve you? It seems to me like your insistence in following this tradition is actually hurting you, not helping you, because it’s narrowing your understanding of your fellow humans, to the point where you can confidently say things like “it’s because they’re male obviously” as if that doesn’t make you look incredibly foolish by modern standards.
At the very least, you may want to consider keeping your belief in gender mythology to yourself.
The alternatives - that "man" and "woman" are identities that anyone of either sex can claim, or that "man" and "woman" are defined by a narrow set of cultural stereotypes - are very niche definitions that should be disregarded as, respectively, absurd and sexist.
As someone who never plays online games with randos - mostly single player, or multiplayer with friends -
I cannot stress enough how much I do not give a shit about anti-cheat, and how thoroughly fed up I am with poorly conceived and ill executed malware being installed on my computer, holding games I own hostage in the name of stopping cheaters that I don’t care about it.
In the age of AI coding, the code itself doesn't matter, much less the code formatting. Just so long as the result functions correctly, we ostensibly never need to see the code again.
Perhaps this is in fact the ultimate code formatting tool -- completely obliterate the need for formatting at all!
“A man looking to beat a dog will easily find a stick.”
There is no such thing as ‘giving the right ammo’ - they already have the gun, and they’re looking to use jt. They will easily find the ammo no matter what you do. No conservatives asshole is sitting around thinking “god I wish I had a way to bully other people but they just haven’t given me a good enough excuse yet.”
Man it is so hard for me to find anything recognizeable here - this panopticon of judges who determine whether you’re ’allowed’ to experience pleasure sounds like superstition and rumor, or at the very least paranoia in the head of one slightly sexually repressed person.
> The fact is that our most intimate interactions with others are now governed by the expectation of surveillance and punishment from an online public. One can never be sure that this public or someone who could potentially expose us to it isn’t there, always secretly filming, posting, taking notes, ready to pounce the second one does something cringe or problematic (as defined by whom?). To claim that these matters are merely discursive in nature is to ignore the problem. Because love and sex are so intimate and vulnerable, the stakes of punishment are higher, and the fear of it penetrates deeper into the psyche and is harder to rationalize away than, say, fear of pushback from tweeting a divisive political opinion.
I don’t see myself in this passage at all. My husband and I had sex this morning and I didn’t waste a moment thinking about this supposed panopticon of sexual surveillance that the author casually assumes is somehow omnipresent in ‘our’ lives.
Where is she getting this from??
How do her experiences so completely fail to line up with my own? Is this her own mental health issue? Is it the friends she chooses to surround herself with, or the content she chooses to consume?
It’s all very strange and impossible to relate to. I can’t remember the last time I felt like anyone else had anything to say about my sex life, at the very least anything that wasn’t generally positive / supportive.
reply