Silverseren

All herbicides are pesticides. Pesticide is the umbrella term for herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, ect.

Agreed on BT plants. The funny thing about that one is that BT toxin is a common pesticide used in organic farming too (and all other farming) because it actually is so effective and non-toxic to vertebrates (hence why it was used to make the BT toxin producing plants in the first place). And yet the anti-GMO groups still fearmongered about the plants anyways, never seeing the hypocrisy in relation to what organic farming uses.

See, I was good with the article up until it started pushing long since debunked pseudoscience claims about glyphosate. The chemical biochemistry of it is clear and, yes, there have been dozens of studies over the years, which have shown that it is actually one of the lower impact pesticides used out there. Anyone using IARC as a source (when that’s not even what IARC is for or about) is betraying their own anti-science stance.

And then they bring up nonsense about organic farming. Organic farming, on average, ends up having to use more pesticides because they use non-specific “natural” ones that are less effective against targeted weeds and thus have to be re-applied more often, such as pyrethrins and spinosad. Furthermore, the use of manure instead of options like drip irrigation causes more nitrogen leaching into the water table than conventional farming methods. If all of our farms were organic farms, this issue would be way worse. Example source: https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/18/333/2014/

And that’s without counting the higher land usage requirements for an equivalent amount of food production from an organic farm compared to a non-organic one. If all our farms were organic, the amount of farmland would be way higher and there’s be way less wilderness areas.

It certainly is more mask off this time around. They aren’t trying to hide behind euphemistic slogans like “ethics in game journalism”. Now they are just blatantly open about their anger that women and minorities are being represented in games and how that’s a bad thing.

Those secondary sources often aren’t reliable as well. It depends on the source and its history of accuracy in reporting. There’s plenty of newspapers that have been determined to not be a reliable source, including any tabloids.

It’s also rather inaccurate. One can use a primary source like the DOT for information to add to an article. It’s just that a primary source like that doesn’t contribute to general notability and importance of the subject matter. The subject needs to be shown to have relevance that has been covered in other forms than just primary sources.

The use of primary sources has long been restricted to minimal usage, since primary means any form of self-published claim. And that sort of source shouldn’t contribute to any form of notability.

“Then on the other hand you can find an article on every Pokemon on Wikipedia.”

You’re rather out of date with that claim. Once upon a time, like a decade or more ago, this was true. But when the notability requirements became stricter, the vast majority of Pokemon articles were removed and redirected to list articles. There are currently only 28 articles on individual Pokemon, out of a possible 1021.

I remember this controversy. The highway editors in question were super opposed to any form of referencing requirements for these highway articles that all other Wikipedia articles have to adhere to and wanted individual articles on the most minute small road routes.

When the editing community at large suggested having broader higher level articles that combined these much less notable articles into a bigger article that was more properly referenced and better showcased a level of importance, the highway editors…well, to put it bluntly, had a hissy fit.

Better? My point still stands.

Tia Nadiezja over in the comments there also has good points:

"Bethesda games get a pass on serious, game-breaking problems that would kill games from other companies. Skyrim still, a decade and more after its original release, two full remasters in, has more glitches and bugs than Mass Effect: Andromeda or Cyberpunk did at launch, and those bugs did serious damage to those games’ reputation.

Throw in the horrific treatment of staff by Bethesda’s management and the open transphobia they’ve displayed, and people should not be playing this bad game. Have some standards, folks!"

"An honest conversation about Starfield needs to come from judging the game for what it is. And the game itself is … fine, I guess? A recent Kotaku article articulates in more detail how Starfield isn’t “humanity’s greatest achievement,” but it’s an enjoyable game and that’s fine. The menu system is extremely clunky and the aforementioned encumbrance issue is still there—all systems that haven’t changed in decades. Whether it’s deliveries or the fate of the galaxy, nobody else seems to do anything but you, the player. Just because these are hallmarks of past Bethesda games doesn’t mean that they get a free pass.

And herein lies the problem. Because Starfield is so similar to Bethesda’s previous offerings (for better or worse), Bethesda “fans” are pushing back against critiques of the game as a critique of all Bethesda properties. Looking at Sterling’s video about encumbrance again, the online defense of the game’s issues boils down to fans saying, “I can’t tell you why. I just do.” This is indicative of the lack of thought that Bethesda actively encourages in their games."

Yeah, that article does a good job at summing up the issues here. It really shows that maybe we need to have a broader conversation about how most past Bethesda games are worse in retrospect, actually. Starfield is helping to exemplify and point out that.

“if you just take it for what it is without thinking what you wanted it to be”

Why would I do that for any video game? With that mindset, you could claim any game is good, because you aren’t actually engaging with its content on the level that it deserves.

Don’t prop up bad games.

“So many complaints I can just address as “it’s a bethesda space game, and this is what it’s supposed to be like”.”

Why do you have such an incredibly low bar for Bethesda in particular? Demand better or you help make the entire video games industry worse.

A significant amount of the bugs do seem to be based on how long you’ve been playing and how far into the game you’ve gotten. The farther you get, the more bugs start appearing.

People have been reporting various bugs in a number of places. Here’s one example: https://www.reddit.com/r/Starfield/comments/168i21o/psa_major_bug_do_not_board_enemy_ships_to_capture/

And a bunch of people bringing up various things here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Starfield/comments/166vco5/starfield_bugsissues/

That’s precisely what I’m seeing with streams of the game. There’s so many bugs and just bizarre design decisions, especially with the opening hour or so, but the streamers then claim it’s a perfect game with no problems.

My concern is when I’m seeing streamers play games like Starfield and run into a ton of bugs, often game-breaking ones, but then go and praise the game to high heaven.

I just want a basement level of proper standards, that’s all I’m asking for.

I have more fun watching other people play it, discover new secrets, and talk about the lore than I ever would playing the game myself.

We met on a webcomic forum over a decade ago.

Because there are a lot of tankie apologists elsewhere. That or those free speech absolutists type that think deplatforming fascists and bigots is censorship and cancel culture or some such nonsense like that.

If the reason for this is to prevent pedophilia content, then this will do nothing. People who access that sort of thing on the dark web aren’t going to be affected by this whatsoever.