If we're talking Thatcher's policies some bangers that people for some reason never bring up, she is also responsible for:
* Countless (they literally didn't bother to count) deaths caused because she refused to release accurate guidance during the height of the HIV epidemic, she didn't want the public knowing about sexual acts she disapproved of.
* Countless (again) STDs, rape, child abuse and suicide cases because she made it illegal for teachers to inform nor support students about LGBTQ issues. The average LGBTQ teenager who finished school before 2003 received ZERO sexual education catered to their actual needs, and ZERO support for the bullying they would be receiving.
I think in general people demonise her rightly, because in 2026 she would be seen as a vicious monster of a person. It is not enough to just be really great for free trade in the current era, we are beyond the point that we have to settle for unhinged backwards politics just for that.
Careful, when you ramp the hyperbole up to this point you are essentially just lying.
A decade ago you could quickly check the blue mark and know that the account most likely belonged to the person it was labelled for. The people who had a mark when they shoudn't have were by far the minority, and mistakes were the exception.
In 2026 a blue checkmark actually means the account is far more likely to be fake, more likely to be lying and more likely to be engagement trolling. There's no guarantee it even belongs to a human person. The platform gives the account holder money if they can convince you to click spam links!
It's not even close to having the same value now as it did then.
> A decade ago you could quickly check the blue mark and know that the account most likely belonged to the person it was labelled for.
They routinely removed blue checkmarks of people that had naughty opinions. The account was known to belong to the actual person. This was no mistake, it was just the good boy badge being removed for vibes.
My point is not that Twitter now under its retarded billionaire king is better. It is not.
It was shit then, it is shit now. The world would be objectively a better place if Twitter had never existed.
The turd just smells different under Musk. You happened to enjoy the old smell.
> They routinely removed blue checkmarks of people that had naughty opinions
This is actually you doing it again, lying-via-hyperbole. This didn't happen routinely (it was high profile enough to get news stories the few times it did) and it was pretty specifically white supremacist groups.
> You happened to enjoy the old smell.
If you approach conversation with a little more honesty yourself you might not just fall into the assumption other people are partisan.
That's what you are doing. I am pretty left-leaning myself, if you look at my post history.
Twitter was a notorious toxic dump long before Musk acquired it. Nothing in what I described was a lie.
The blue checkmark was supposed to be something that meant "account is verified, person is who they say they are". It was weaponized by the platform itself to mean "this person has no naughty opinions". Now I ask, was this an improvement?
Now it is actually more straightforward. "Blue checkmark means person gives money to Twitter on a monthly basis". It is still a toxic dump, it just smells different.
I'm guessing your issues were not so severe if "keep trying things forever and telling yourself to get over it" is the epiphany which helped you, clinical depression doesn't go away that easily.
Late reply but in case you come back to this, the thing that helped me out of clinical depression was 150mg of bupropion twice a day for a few years, then I was able to get out of bed reliably enough take up cycling.
If you feel you're clinically depressed get diagnosed and treated in a clinical setting ASAP. Diseases need treatment.
My winning alternative is not to go online and be the mental health equivalent of that survivorship bias fighter plane image. "Just tell yourself to get over it" is advice that can only possibly work because you didn't actually need it.
I am hoping this space improves, I wanted to cast video to watch some stuff with friends last year and the software to accomplish this now is both really heavy (does EVERY part of the process need to run http server?) and convoluted.
We ended up just doing a discord screen share, which evaded all the tunnelling/transcoding/etc issues which made us give up on WebRTC.
Around last year I was using some custom plugins for OBS, I haven't used Broadcast Box but I can pick it up to try sometime later.
> If that is still too heavy, what could I do to make it better?
I haven't picked it up yet to see whether it's complex enough to really need it but it has the same pain point a few priors did--being yet another service which I must configure via the browser and so it has to run an entire frontend for doing that rather than being able to do config files.
I would much rather my 45 minute game be disrupted and the user booted permanently by moderators VS every game be disrupted for months while the developers try and work out which parts of my privacy they can invade to maybe hopefully boot the cheaters.
You didn't answer the GP's question. You talked about what you wanted.
The answer to their question is: the majority of people who play competitive matchmade games online have decided that they want anticheat, and disagree with you.
It's funny because this isn't even a hypothetical, you're actually just wrong!
The majority of people who play competitive matchmade games online didn't get consulted, the developers put anti-cheat in after the audience was already entrenched. The players didn't "decide" anything, Riot games decided it in like 2020 and the players have middling to negative feelings about it. You weren't talking about Riot Games? Well you said "majority of people who play competitive matchmade games online" and that's Riot Games, so yes you were.
> It's funny because this isn't even a hypothetical, you're actually just wrong!
Citation needed. Strong assertions like "you're just wrong" are automatically false if evidence isn't provided. Where's your evidence for this?
> The majority of people who play competitive matchmade games online didn't get consulted, the developers put anti-cheat in after the audience was already entrenched.
Completely irrelevant to anything we're talking about here. Although I'm not surprised, given that it's coming from someone with other utterly insane statements like "I would not be shocked if simple vote-kick outperforms every anti-cheat on the market." that suggest that you've never played competitive matchmade games or interacted with trolls on the internet, or completely failed to respond to hombre_fatal's question (whether due to bad faith or lack of reading comprehension is unclear) and just made some unrelated snide statement.
That they brought up League of Legends in 2020 makes me wonder if they were around when all we had were private servers or custom lobbies. That would explain their rose-tinted glasses.
In games like Warcraft 3 and Halo 2, the automated ranked matchmaking was well-regarded and a huge departure from waiting for a lobby to fill only for the admin to kick you because his friend wants to join or because you're playing the Age of Empires civ that he wants to play.
Auto randomization also baked in solutions to questions like how to stop people from farming rank.
The developers aren't pro players either, the cutting edge for anti-cheats still require that non-cheaters play with cheaters for months. I would not be shocked if simple vote-kick outperforms every anti-cheat on the market.
I'm in a major city (>1 million pop) and with exception of the BBQ type places every eatery I've visited has had a passable meat imitation burger (or nuggets, etc) on offer.
Are you based in a more rural area? That might account for why the selection is small where you are.
This is a myth. You could be confusing the story of the factory workers who had popcorn lung, or you may be thinking of the bootleg marijuana carts which had vitamin E in the mix, in either case the story is wrong and also about a decade out of date.
Politeness is not the same thing as gratuitous praise. Politeness is appropriate; being excessively glazed for asking an obvious follow-up question is weird.
Right, and neither politeness nor gratuitous praise are even remotely similar to being edgy. These words have meanings, you have been using at least one of them incorrectly, that is the point I'm trying to make.
> Stood her ground, if it wasn't for her books allowing her advocacy, she'd have disappeared. Instead she has to endure being among the most hated millionaires for a good bunch of the left.
This framing is laying on the narrative a little bit thick don't you think? It makes it seem like she's hated for being wealthy, when it is actually because she has been funding hate groups and calling for trans people to be physically attacked.
The "standing up for women" rhetoric is a little bit hollow in the face of her non-existent feminism when the subject isn't physically attacking trans women, she didn't make a single comment during the recent uptick in abortion debates taking place in the UK for example.
You are just proving my point. Statements like this show that it's worthless to engage.
Can you provide any source for her "calling for trans people to be physically attacked"? Because you seem fixated on it, and I've just spent the last 15 minutes looking for one, and I can't find it.
What I can find is her spending so much goddamned money on philanthropy that she stops being a billionaire, while not dodging a dime of taxes precisely because she considers it her obligation. A fortune amassed in what is probably the most ethic way possible, through exploitation of nobody, writing books.
Related to this I can find the foundation of the Volant Charitable Trust, "a grant-making trust to support charitable causes in Scotland, helping vulnerable groups with an emphasis on women, children and young people."
I can also find a comment of "every trans person’s right to live any way that feels authentic and comfortable to them".
And that's the point. You want to paint her as some lunatic who would like to hunt trans people down for sport, when it's crystal clear that she has the "radical" (standard 2018 radical leftist) notion that trans women are not the same thing as biological women and that the definition of women shouldn't be changed to appease to them.
But again. It's not worth it to engage, because we both know I can spend 20+ minutes working on this reply and you are not going to change your stance. An apostate is worse than a heathen, which is why people complain about Rowling rather than anyone who is actually right wing. Because you are scared that if you defended her, you would face the same judgement. Making the world a worse place through and through.
I posted that earlier without checking and recalled wrongly, rather than calling for people to physically assault she instead called for her following to take photographs of trans women in public toilets and disseminate those photos to the public[1].
That was my bad, I knew that she had done something abhorrent and indefensible but it was 5 months ago and I'd forgotten which kind of hatred she had been producing specifically. I'll cite the source first next time.
1: https://www.instagram.com/p/DLPG5DlIFIz/ -- I don't have a twitter account to forward the original, but there are news stories about this from the time if you're unsatisfied with that link.
This only holds if you assume that the hiring process is already fully meritocratic (which it very clearly isn't) and that it isn't missing talented women already (which it very clearly is).
If hiring managers are, subconsciously or not, more likely to pick the male candidate when faced with a choice for equally capable male/female candidates then there is inherent discrimination in the process and the DEI approach balances the scale.
This means more women working these roles with the same capability as men, it doesn't mean replacing men with women who are worse at the job, which ironically is an attitude making up part of the reason efforts like this have to be made.
> This only holds if you assume that the hiring process is already fully meritocratic (which it very clearly isn't) and that it isn't missing talented women already (which it very clearly is).
Citation needed. Certainly neither of those is "clearly".
> If hiring managers are, subconsciously or not, more likely to pick the male candidate when faced with a choice for equally capable male/female candidates then there is inherent discrimination in the process and the DEI approach balances the scale.
And if it's the opposite, as the best available evidence (not that there is any really solid evidence in this space) suggests?
I'm all for ensuring that everyone gets a fair chance that reflects their skills and experience, regardless of personal characteristics. As far as I can see DEI initiatives are working against that.
* Countless (they literally didn't bother to count) deaths caused because she refused to release accurate guidance during the height of the HIV epidemic, she didn't want the public knowing about sexual acts she disapproved of.
* Countless (again) STDs, rape, child abuse and suicide cases because she made it illegal for teachers to inform nor support students about LGBTQ issues. The average LGBTQ teenager who finished school before 2003 received ZERO sexual education catered to their actual needs, and ZERO support for the bullying they would be receiving.
I think in general people demonise her rightly, because in 2026 she would be seen as a vicious monster of a person. It is not enough to just be really great for free trade in the current era, we are beyond the point that we have to settle for unhinged backwards politics just for that.
reply