personally I found Nova to be kind of old school interface-wise… it’s good, but I’ve grown too used to IDEs like Atom/VS/etc, which seem more minimal on the surface
Of course you can customize it and do whatever you want, but I found it hard to find a reason to switch outside of my affinity for the people at Panic (and I’ve got plenty of other ways to give them money).
yeah it’s a little bleak tbh, the scents are an attempt to influence your memory and make you hungry, and things like magic bands are meant to make you spend as much money as possible by making money more opaque
it might go back to the american superiority complex; african and asian homeless people are different and distant enough to make us feel good about ourselves (poor foreigners), american homeless are “like us” so they shouldn’t have an excuse (just get a job like i did)
some small cities literally buy their homeless bus tickets to get rid of them, and their politicians point to the places they send them as liberalism run amok… how do you even undo such callousness
MRNA vaccines are not new, but the efficacy is. There are drugs on the market right now with much less r&d behind them. The main problem with the covid vaccines are political machinations.
I suspect part of the problem is that bricklaying is a human designed activity… what would a building process optimized for robots look like? more like 3d printing?
Using the green cross for a pharmacy supports the suggested use as a generic symbol for health...
I didn't exclude Asia, I stated that my experience there is more limited than the continents I listed. The US isn't a reliable authority on any international standards.
If you started up a new video game and the health packs had green crosses instead of red ones, would you be confused?
It's objectively true. The US ignores many widely accepted international standards, and in multiple cases stands alone in doing so. It's not the defacto world view and shouldn't be treated as such.
Asking works of fiction to stop using a symbol doesn't seem at all like a moral panic to me. What they're saying is "this symbol has a specific meaning, and it's important to us that it's not diluted."
They're not calling for video games to be banned or even re-labeled, they're just trying to prevent the red cross from losing the intended meaning (which comes with an international treaty intended to protect aid workers)... it seems like the method of applying this mostly consists of asking nicely.
This falls under the appropriate case as defined under the Geneva Conventions, because these would be used by people administering aid in armed conflict.
It's about the ubiquity in fiction. If every police box in fiction was a time machine, it stands to reason someone may be confused when encountering a real police box for the first time.
The misuse of the red cross, especially in video games, is rampant to the point that the Red Cross is worried about confusion.
There's additional issue with the fact that video games are very common, but warzones and disaster areas less so. So it's quite possible the fictional association, if overused, could redefine the real-life usage for many people. We already see some of this in the comment section... many people don't understand the difference between "health" as a concept and the red cross as an element protected by international law.
It seems reasonable to try and claw that meaning back.