I'm not sure any of those things (curry, reggae, tea) are examples by themselves of cultural appropriation. The first two are artefacts of groups who came to Britain and became part of it - British Indians and British Caribbeans are celebrated as part of Britain today.
As for the British imperialism - I completely agree that the British empire was a disgusting imperialist and racist project that destroyed economies and cultures.
Not to 'whatabout' but it's worth pointing out in the context of this discussion, that the Japanese Empire was at one point a disgusting imperialist and racist project as well, that similarly destroyed economies and cultures.
I think the Japenese designs are interesting, I am not the original thread commenter. I do however agree that there is a lot of 'Orientalism' that still goes on in the modern day, which is itself a form of xenophobia (it is highlighting Japanese culture as something exotic, and others Japanese people, who are just people same as me and you).
I'm not sure why a discussion of Japanese design required you to attack modern British design practices, and conflating criticisms of Orientalism with being imperialist seems a stretch.
This seems rather blatantly anti-british? Feels like you're taking your point too far the other way.
How exactly is Britain not a country good at designing things for longevity? It is probably amongst the countries in the world that goes to the most effort to protect its architectural history, and also has some world class modern design schools.
The government also has a unified design system that makes using government digital services really easy.
why is critiquing Japanese design "open misanthropy" but you're more than happy to critique British design?
I'm not American, so I'll admit I don't exactly subscribe to your american-centric ideas of what the global pandemic was about (operative word: global).
You haven't really explained the link between getting vaccinated and contact tracing, or any other form or surveillance. Getting vaccinated is a simple one-time transactional interaction. There is no intrinsic need for surveillance.
With that in mind, why are you against vaccination? Like I said - people being less anti-vaccination should help build a world where surveillance is less necessary. So you should be in favour of it.
You're describing contact tracing, that is not vaccination. If people were less afraid of vaccinations, invasive practices like contact tracing would be less necessary.
Arguing against that sort of contact tracing may have merits (Not necessarily saying I agree but it's a discussion worth having). Arguing against vaccination is dangerous and ends up with people dead.
What does getting the COVID vaccine have to do with surveillance or grocery shopping?
Where I live I simply queued up at the local vaccination centre, got vaccinated, and left. I probably had to show some id or something I guess but no more than accessing any other government services
Just to clarify this as well, while sixth form (17~18 years old) is optional in the UK, education is still compulsory until you're 18. you have the option to do this at an apprenticeship or skills based school but lots of people do just default to a levels.
What are you talking about? The US has the 2nd heighest emissions behind China, almost double India's. The only countries higher than it per-capita are Canada, Australia and petro-states or tiny countries.
And China is already leading the world in moving to renewable technology, they are moving in the right direction (not entirely for altruistic reasons - it fulfils their ambitions of energy self-sufficiency).
That's just elitist though isn't it? These games are enjoyed by players from all over the world, including massive numbers of players in countries with far less average disposable income. Its common in many countries to go to an internet cafe to play these games as they don't own their own hardware even.
It would also massively reduce the number of players. Competitive multiplayer games rely on large active playerbases for fast and fair matchmaking. That's why free to play has become the dominant model for these games. If you have to pay $1000 to play one of these games, they have no chance vs. the competition.
Obviously you can't completely solve this problem, but you can minimize it as much as possible.
Also these sorts of "trusted clubs" do exist for certain games (e.g. FaceIt for CounterStrike) but ultimately it still just relies on anti-cheat to establish that trust.
This is a naive take. Of course these developers already permaban cheaters. Firstly many of these games are free to play so "getting another license" is a non issue. They're doing hardware bans nowadays which are harder to avoid but not impossible.
Half the battle is detection though. If you don't detect cheaters quick enough they ruin enough games that genuine players start getting frustrated and leave. Anti cheats help with this detection.
Probably every anti cheat idea you can think of, in terms of detection, prevention and punishment, has probably already been tried by a large online multiplayer game. It is an extremely difficult problem to solve, a constant arms race.
Riot games use theirs (Vanguard) to improve detection of cheating software. basically the idea is by being on from the moment the computer is booted up it can validate the environment better.
Here's a recent blog post by riot detailing their recent deployment of the system for league of legends, the biggest online multiplayer game in the world
It is only "anti-white" in the sense it's criticizing white men from over a hundred years ago who were doing pretty horrible things in the name of colonialism.
And the fact they were white is pretty important as they themselves used this as justification for their superiority and thus colonialism.
It would be more productive to engage with the meat of the article rather than dismissing it because they mentioned the race and gender of the subjects and engaging in "anti-woke" dog whistling.
You dismiss a lot of modern technologies as "unnecessarily complicated", you advocate for reinventing the wheel coming across with a very "I know better" attitude.
For example you create your own bundler, when modern bundlers are very mature and good.
For example you dismiss SSR as unnecessary and then basically roll your own. You dismiss modern frameworks out of hand then list performance improvements they can make for you (e.g. keeping state in html).
Your last two performance improvements are about not taking drugs???
I'm really pro people doing things themselves for fun and all that but this article and you comment comes across as so arrogant and condescending whilst also seeming to show ignorance (or at least willful dismissal) of exactly where modern JavaScript development is at, and present it as state of the art performance improvements.
As for the British imperialism - I completely agree that the British empire was a disgusting imperialist and racist project that destroyed economies and cultures.
Not to 'whatabout' but it's worth pointing out in the context of this discussion, that the Japanese Empire was at one point a disgusting imperialist and racist project as well, that similarly destroyed economies and cultures.
I think the Japenese designs are interesting, I am not the original thread commenter. I do however agree that there is a lot of 'Orientalism' that still goes on in the modern day, which is itself a form of xenophobia (it is highlighting Japanese culture as something exotic, and others Japanese people, who are just people same as me and you).
I'm not sure why a discussion of Japanese design required you to attack modern British design practices, and conflating criticisms of Orientalism with being imperialist seems a stretch.