- V1 viewers cannot support mesh.
- Henri Beauchamp made it work for CoolVL, damn him.
- People are switching from Phoenix to CoolVL. We purely can't have that.
- I never wanted Phoenix to have mesh. We're DONE with Phoenix. It's OVER, people.
- But one of our coders whined, and built up a database of patches anyway...so, fine, I caved--AGAINST my better judgement, mind you--and now Phoenix will have mesh.
- It will be buggy, it will crash, it will do other weird things, because I don't care what Henri says, mesh just doesn't WORK with v1.
- Even though we said we'll never update Phoenix again, now we're going to, though as I said, I'm profoundly against it.
- Also, you idiots should upgrade your machines. I mean, my god, some of you can't even run SSE2-enabled viewers. What are you, five? Grow up and upgrade, damn it!
- We've also installed RLV coding into Phoenix, even though I was also against that, because really, you people need to get better hobbies than deviant sex.
- But get this through your thick heads, people--we won't update Phoenix again. This is it. This is all you get, and you should be goddamn thankful that anyone bothered with a stupid v1 viewer structure in the first place.
You know, other than Henri getting mesh to work in a V2 structure that has a V1 interface. Which she of course said couldn't be done.
[Insert from the Editrix: Henri's responded to the allegations in a calm, unruffled, and rational manner, pretty much striking down Lyon's raving point by point. It's a refreshing breath of logical air. Also, tip of the hat to friend Alex, for finding me the link.]
In a move that will surprise no one following the Google debacle, Google has now "streamlined" their appeals process--to make it even more likely to catch innocents and "guilty" (note, Google's definitions of guilt, there) alike:
"Apparently there's no limitation on the number of times Google might decide to take a disliking to your name, even if Google previously approved it, and you showed it government ID with that name on it."Miss Tateru Nino said that, and she's absolutely right--Google has moved from evil with a side of baffling into supervillain status with this. And there's been no further resolution on how these "inappropriate" names are found; the amount of like or dislike generated in any particular Google employee seems fairly random. That hasn't really altered since July; they've just gotten a lot more harsh on things.
Another quote (from the second linked article):
We don't support pseudonymous use in Google+: we support the use of whatever name you use in your life.On paper, at least, Google is maintaining a contradictory stance to begin with, because take cases like me. I use my real name with my bank and with government offices. Everyone else--and I mean that, just about everyone else, including family, close friends, the theatre we mainly go to, occasional acquaintances, catalogs, online purchases through Amazon and other entities, my insurance company, the clinics and hospitals I've attended, and most of my blogs--gets Emilly Orr.
In point of fact, not a few people closest to me, call me by that name and no other. Or they switch fluidly back and forth between Emilly and my "real" name. So "whatever name I use in my life"? That's Emilly, for the most part.
Yet that's the name Google doesn't want. I'm more than past glad I severed my Google+ profile when I did; my only fear now is that somehow, at some point, Google's going to make use of it mandatory for everyone.
And then...there's the ongoing JLU scandal. Now, I did say I was going to stop going through the SLUniverse threads and pulling out quotable bits, and I'm holding to that. But more has surfaced in the meantime, and Axi Kurmin is hot on the trail of the new revelations. She's even got the second part of the series up, and one of the first things she does is challenges everyone involved in the debate--on any side--to be clear on the terminology they're using. I quote:
"Defining your terms is important. It allows everyone to speak about a thing and actually be communicating the same ideas. When you don't define them, you wind up arguing over what they mean.I took all of that, because I think all of that is important. Throughout everything on SLUniverse, and through both entries so far--and in the comments--on Search Engine Watch, she's remained clear, concise, and level-headed. She's not sinking to anyone's level; she's holding her own, and asking--nay, on occasion demanding--that we do the same. Civil discourse demands no less.
"I have also found that people like to change what things mean to suit themselves, particularly when they feel like calling someone nasty names. Whilst watching this story unfold, many people (self included) have noticed that the JLU (and their supporters) apparently aren't quite sure what the word 'griefer' means, because they keep stretching its boundaries farther and farther, even to include anyone who doesn't support them and says so in a public forum, and nothing more. Let us review:
"A griefer is a player in a multiplayer video game that deliberately irritates and harasses other players."
The problem is, as I've stated before, neither side seems interested in that. The few members who've come forward to support the JLU have either dissolved into hysterics, insisted that they're trustworthy simply because they are (recursive logic at its best), or flounced off under the "I just can't talk with you people" banner.
And the folks who stand against the JLU, most often, are descending into rabid over-emotionalism itself, because it's pretty difficult to remain calm and steadfast in the face of "we don't have to show you that" and "you can't HANDLE the truth!" proclamations.
At any rate, it will be an interesting series to watch.
In other news, this is just gorgeous, read all about decision fatigue, and afterwards, read about six fashion trends that actually killed people--including the crinoline skirt, and the corset. Fun!
And to wrap this up for you, I have four words: blood orange chocolate bat. That is all.