...this is the Moralist analysis, anyway. Hello from the Kingdom of Conscience!

Frankly, there's even value in the actual original version, in that the alien control scheme really makes one feel as though one's piloting some sort of unwieldy vehicle. It's ludonarratively consonant with the hacker-main-character struggling with the military-grade neural hardware he received in exchange for jailbreaking SHODAN, and kicking off the story.

The remake version does away with a bunch of weapons, and rejiggers inventory to be in the style of System Shock 2 which utilized a grid, a la Diablo or any number of others These are minor changes, but they really repulse me. The original could easily deal out "unbalanced" or unusual encounters because of the incredible variety and amount of inventory cruft one would collect -- grenades, drugs, all the different ammo types.

[0] https://www.gog.com/en/game/system_shock_enhanced_edition

One certainly cannot change how one feels about one's security, but those don't seem to be reasons Linux is inherently more or less secure than Windows...

If one actually reads it, it's just a recapitulation of the root-level link. "SED", the organization the editorial rails against, isn't a teacher's union, you know -- it's the State Education Department. ctrl+f for "union" in that piece, and beyond a reference to the Times Union article, the only involvement of a teachers' union is at the end, where the editorial's author claims that the union is the only beneficiary of these shenanigans, and implies that they had a dastardly hand in anointing the Assembly Speaker.

>There is more data out their to support OPs claim than yours that they are against it

Ah, but you didn't provide data, but instead a slanted editorial without the proof you trumpeted. If there were other articles from other sources that you could trivially find, why didn't you use them? Why use this and misrepresent what it said?

And, fine, you got me, there doesn't appear to be any direct link between the AQE and a teachers' union -- where I come from, the teachers' union donates to grassroots lobbyists like that, the better to improve education funding for children, because teachers are actually there to teach kids, not get fat from subsidy and shirk their responsibility. I reflexively assumed it was the same here. TBH, I suspect we're not going to see eye to eye on this because I can't conceive of a scenario where teachers would rather just turn down the standards rather than lift up their charges. What's happening sounds like an admin thing -- and indeed, both the root-level link and your editorial suggests that it's the admin, the SED, doing this. I hate to say it so bluntly, but I think your own biases are clouding your judgement as to what's happening here and why. Blaming teachers is a red herring, as teachers generally do not have control over, nor approve of, what school boards wind up mandating in the name of "cost-cutting" or "modernization".

To any confused readers, consider the second paragraph in the context of the first.

The link provided shows that, in fact, the union opposed the change. This claim is a bald faced lie, and lies should be downvoted on HN.

Telemarketers have chosen to architect their business on the predicate that people trustingly pick up their phones and interact with those who call them. That social norm is fading; people screen their calls, or even use eg that Pixel phone thing in which a robot picks up, confronts the telemarketer, and texts the user.

The DOM doesn't live out there somewhere, it lives inside my browser. Being choosy about which parts actually get displayed, as opposed to dropped on the ground, isn't taking food out of people's mouths, it's my failing to adhere to a social norm of naively rendering a webpage exactly as it's sent to me. It reminds me of psuedo-moral panic about WFH coring out once-lively commercial real estate and all its downstream consequences (eg, the absence of cubicle drones needing to go out to eat at lunch hour, etc) -- who owes who a living, and why?

Can you go on more about this, please? This sounds, frankly, heavenly, but the second sentence gives me pause. I guess it's not necessarily a question of how reliably it can "broadly" refactor but rather how broadly "broadly" is meant to be taken...

>- generate SQL queries at the speed of mouth

...and this? I'm not really a database guy, but I do keep hearing from them about how (eg, a database guy's) stateful knowledge of a database can result much, much more efficient queries than eg a sales guy with a query builder. Are the robut's queries more like the former or the latter?

>“The Encyclopedia Galactica defines a robot as a mechanical apparatus designed to do the work of a man. The marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation defines a robot as "Your Plastic Pal Who's Fun to Be With". The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy defines the marketing devision of the Sirius Cybernetic Corporation as "a bunch of mindless jerks who'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.” ― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology#WEIRD_bias

[1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain...

[0] https://xkcd.com/538/

Er, what? Who do you think is showing up shortly after the drone does? Who do you think the drone reports to?

There's something about reasonability and fair-use and use over time going on here, but I just can't put my finger on it.

I know of JRR Tolkien, and GRR Martin, but...

As Charles Dodgson/Lewis Carroll wrote, "If your thoughts incline ever so little towards fuming,” you will say “fuming-furious;” if they turn, by even a hair's breadth, towards “furious,” you will say “furious-fuming;” but if you have the rarest of gifts, a perfectly balanced mind, you will say “frumious.”"

...to add something of more topical substance, I generally agree with the perfectly-balanced opinion above, in that it's a surprisingly mealy-mouthed justification for what is pretty clearly awful behaviour. I'd respect the hustle a lot more if the response hadn't been so verbally Corporate Memphis.