Honestly he might be marketing himself as someone beyond "just a horror movie director," but that doesn't seem necessary in a world where horror movies are getting Oscar attention.

I think the entire field of AI (not just the generative AI subset) should've been called "simulated intelligence" or something like that. It points to the goal of the field (i.e. to achieve something similar to intelligence) without the implicit claim that any of the contributions achieve true intelligence.

I didn't shove it that deep. I just tried to clean just inside my ear, which was enough to shove some ear wax further up my ear and clog it. I now know (and frequently lecture my wife) that qtips should only be used on the outside of the ear.

I inadvertently clogged one of my ears with a Qtip, effectively making me deaf in that ear. I tried to wait it out, but I eventually started to get a headache. Went to the clinic, and they flushed my ear out. I don't use Qtips anymore.

Yeah, I will not pretend that I did not have fun with it. However, by the end of it I had not desire for more of it. As a result, I haven't played any of the sequels.

I find it kind of funny that Spider-Man is held up as some sort of golden standard to adhere to in all of this. Spider-Man is also very average game imo. The gameplay is not very compelling, and it's no surprise that Insomniac's approach would overstay its welcome after a couple of games. Doubly so when you move from Spider-Man, a character with a more diverse moveset and inherent better traversal abilities, to Wolverine.

Bright white gravy is probably garbage from a packet. A gravy made with quality, flavorful sausage will always add a bit of color.

I always thought it was because they essentially pioneered the "rock music for commercials" genre

I didn't say I think it's art. I don't know if it is, and I don't really care if it is or not. I also don't care if it's called art. I'm just saying the mental gymnastics of trying to convince someone that something like programming as art is cringe.

I certainly don't disagree with the points made in the video. It in fact points out something related to what I'm saying. He states he notices that people that claim something is not art are often gatekeeping something from becoming "elevated." I'm extending the converse argument: many people trying to claim something is art are trying to elevate it to a new status.

My problem with calling programming art is not that I don't think programming is art, but rather that I think that label is not useful in this context. Programming is something that is very much valued without that label. Thus adding the label is just an attempt to tack on unneeded elevation to the craft. In some ways the video supports my viewpoint. The debate over what is art is a bit tired. It's worth having, but personally I don't think it is needed in this case.

I have put on that much muscle. I just refuse to buy any kool-aid that's being sold to me. Maybe they should bring proof instead of spreading trends blindly?