I don't suppose this is fighting against the assumption that marriage is a part of becoming a fully-fledged adult. So is the fear in this reality that you'd get force-bethrothed to an ugly woman (let's not hold a mirror on that too long)? But what about the beautiful women? Are they given last pick or something?
Or, perhaps, would the beautiful women marry someone else, and you would be the dregs for the late, unlucky woman to scrape off the bottom of the barrel?
What you described as enjoyable isn't "Skyrim" that's just the Gamebryo engine. The Companions don't figure into a physics glitch that rockets you up to kiss the twin moons. Nocturne and the Nightingales aren't relevant to a horse glued at an 85° angle to a mountain face. You're just describing mucking around in a less interactive GMod. But people did like the mage who pancaked himself with a jump spell, the woman who is absolutely a necrophiliac, and Glarthir's deranged quest. Actual components of those games that were done well. We all want them to make the game better so we actually want to experience all the bits that are well done and funny.
The Elder Scrolls isn't popular because of the shitty engine. It's memed because of the engine, but the games are generally fun enough to keep playing through the more benign bugs. And, like shared trauma, we all laugh about the bad bits in hindsight.
These people are flooding free projects with shite code: they lack that level of self-awareness.
But you believe a formal declaration that they don't want AI crap code will stop complaints from the degenerates who then try to sneak it in? Or the people who complain that they're "needlessly denying good code"? People will always complain and argue.
I'm not awake enough (nor qualified enough) to get into "laws" and what they're "actually for" but sufficed to say that I don't think the analogy applies to a curated resource. Sure, it's free but it does have an owner and you can't stop the owner from doing what they want with it, including unilaterally canning random contributions. You just fork it.
I never use the tag. Anyone annoying enough that I want to remember not to engage with them, I just default to blocking. Do they post good content or something?
A system that benefits people who lie about objective facts should be destroyed.
If the tactical business decision is to look someone in the face and say "spending 2/3rds of a day, 16 whole hours, idly gazing at photos of anything is not an addiction" in order to protect business interests, then things are wrong. Addiction to a product should be met with horror! Oh no, how could this happen? Instead, it's part of the business model.
I don't feel that gratified that they're fine with white supremacy but draw the line at pedophilia. Even if they weren't just racist rats fleeing a sinking ship.
Clear, and also extremely lazy, attempt to do malicious compliance of file release. These files didn't start as .pdfs. To me, this seems like they were renamed to make it seem like there was nothing to see to the casual and tech-illiterate observer.
Ooof, that's a beautiful sight. Clean snow, clear sightlines, and a big fire.