What point are you making here? The author of the review doesn't seem to be affiliated with any keyboard. Are you suggesting the distributor of the MoErgo Glove80 provided the author with this image and/or a general narrative?
Regarding guns and chat bots. You've said as much and the origin of the discussion says as much. Where does anyone suggest they are referring to use of LLMs in military deployments other than you?
> The store obviously has an obligation to hand over either money or the goods, but it's not clear that obligation is transient to anyone that ends up with the goods.
It is extremely clear. You are just detailing the buffer being used to pretend otherwise.
In answering whether Nguyen's argument holds, Runciman decides Nguyen isn't talented enough to be worth judging, then judges him anyway. A book about scoring systems gets scored on the wrong axis. Runciman then uses this to great effect, blending this silly aesthetic complaint with a real structural one.
The structural point I even agree with. You can always take up a new game, but at the social level there is often no other game to play, and you can't opt out of a metric that has power over you. But Runciman doesn't trust the point to carry the piece, so the verdict on Nguyen's prose is enlisted to stand in for a verdict on Nguyen's case.
The irony: to fault the book for not being "compelling reading" is to let a convenient proxy displace the value it was meant to track. That is "value capture" as Nguyen puts it.
Being that can be understood is language. The previous commenter is making an particular argument for how we can improve this understanding. They didn't suggest we should use less familiar words, but different familiar words. Why is this strange?
I believe it was emergent from FPS gaming culture, particularly following the popularity of Apex Legends. In Apex Legends you have an energy shield which serves as a buffer of hit points. When playing cooperatively it is useful to communicate when this energy shield is "cracked", thus the line "they are cracked" emerged. This originally meant a target player's shield is down in Apex Legend specifically, but it was then the Fortnite (and broader FPS) community which took this phrase and warped it to mean someone is precise or an excellent shot. Today it is certainly used in the context the original poster intended.
edit: Looking again, this may be overstated. Apex-era gaming culture likely helped popularize the usage, but considering older idioms like "crack shot," the actual etymological root is more likely there.
I personally could not stomach the clocktower. I may just be bad at platforming, but the stage felt jarringly frustrating compared to the pleasant frustration I was having with the rest of the games challenges. After my 10th or so time getting blasted by a fireball while inching across a beam, I made my peace. It is a shame because I very much enjoyed the premise and world otherwise.
This is what I suggest too, what a good way of putting it!
Some people have very funny ways at looking at the most mundane context in my mind. It would be a shame if I didnt spend time sharing my funny head in ways that can't be captured in a record!
I don't mean to detract from your point, but regarding your footnote, you seemingly have. Unless it is in your writing style to make direct asides about how one may infer your message was procured.
I attempted to explore the works of Kinoko Nasu/TYPE-MOON through its characters and the relationships across works and it was mostly nonsense. Sure it had some broad relations correct, but it presented a tiny set of meaningful characters and only attempted to touch Fate/Stay-Night and Tsukihime.
Even more damning was that it produced garbled text for a few of the textual representations and often even if the lettering was clean, the grammar was off.
There are many ways to interpret this, yes. I only mean to disrupt the framing you keep asserting of good and bad faith, I'm still not sure I understand what you are getting at.
No one is assuming the output is strictly low quality from what I can tell. I am personally evaluating the method you provided, which suggested you are championing a sloppy but highly iterative design flow against a seasoned curated suite for defining design. I dont see any reason to assume the other comment was doing anything otherwise.
You made a broad generalized strong claim and were met with the opposing force, which is actually acting from their own understanding of good faith, believe it or not (see how this analysis is void of meaning?).