Is every situation where money exchanges hands an abusive relationship? If the same gameplay mechanics existed but there was zero way to pay money and instead only spend time is it suddenly no longer abusive?
People's time is worth nothing and money is the only thing which matters and people who value their time more than some small amount of money don't deserve to be able to enjoy any games?
>If the mechanic exists solely for gameplay reasons, rather than for manipulating the player, it's not taking advantage of anyone.
If a person spends 100 hours in a game which requires ridiculous grind that's less evil than if they spend 5 hours in a game and spend $2 to unlock extra turns sooner than just waiting while having equal amounts of enjoyment?
Time is money. You may not value your own time but I and others do. Even in "pure" experiences if elements of play are there for gameplay reasons (every game having different goals) it can cost a person a lot of money just by playing it for a long time.
The point is that games require you to spend 100 hours for "ridiculous grind" for no other reason than to motivate you to pay to not grind. If paying was not an option, the game would be designed to not require any non-enjoyable grinding/waiting (even if there is grinding, it would be an enjoyable part of the gameplay, not just "wait 5 minutes and you can click something again").
Imagine a game where you build a village. You need gold to build something. The game gives you X gold every 5 minutes, and you can pay to get more. Sounds reasonable, right? Except that there is no gameplay reason for you to wait 5 minutes to get more gold. They could just as well give you more every 30 seconds and the gameplay would became 10 times faster and more enjoyable.
If there is no option to pay with money, there would not be any need to pay with time either.
The article missed pointing out a very important detail about H-1B1 visa (for Chile and Singapore): unlike the dual intent H-1B visa, the H-1B1 is a non-immigrant visa. This means that you must establish the non-immigrant intent to get it. It also means that, should you happen to change your mind after some time, you would have to switch to H-1B visa before trying for the green card.
Also, speaking from the personal experience, the fact that the H-4 visa doesn't allow your spouse to work deserves more emphasis. If there's anything that might drive me and my family back to Chile, it's the H-4 visa.
It's commendable to want to be grateful for what we have and not take it for granted, but it should never be used as an argument against wanting to improve our lot.
I can understand wanting to share your newly found sense of perspective with everyone else, but I'd like to suggest balancing it a bit with the following excerpt from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:
To Trin Tragula's horror, the shock completely annihilated her brain; but to his satisfaction he realized that he had proved conclusively that if life is going to exist in a Universe of this size, then the one thing it cannot afford to have is a sense of proportion.
the point is that business and school hours can be (and are) different in different countries. You can either change the timetables or the clock. To change the former requires more coordination throughout the society, hence we move the clock.
I agree with the underlying message, which is to listen to your market. I just feel that the example Justin used is somewhat unfortunate, because I feel it describes a missed opportunity.
Of course the barber doesn't think he needs anything beyond a better paper calendar, but what do his customers think? Would they, perhaps, prefer to book online instead of over the phone?
I guess that what I'm trying to say is that you should definitely listen to your customers, but you shouldn't let that blind you. It's like that Henry Ford quote: "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses." The problem, of course, is that very few people are Henry Ford material ;)
"That," replied Hardin, "is the interesting thing. The analysis was the most difficult of the three by all odds. When Holk, after two days of steady work, succeeded in eliminating meaningless statements, vague gibberish, useless qualifications in short, all the goo and dribble he found he had nothing left. Everything canceled out."
"Lord Dorwin, gentlemen, in five days of discussion didn't say one damned thing, and said it so you never noticed. There are the assurances you had from your precious Empire."
Ever since the first time I've read that, I've wanted newspapers to do that. Then when I learned about diffs and similar styles, I've wanted it to be done with strikethroughs or red -- and ++ marking up the actual speech's text.
That was a really poor choice of a name. It took me less than 10 seconds to start hearing Pink Floyd's "Mother"  in my head. Once that started happening, I just couldn't stay objective while looking at the pitch.
> What strikes me is how little was gained by both sides in this, and how futile their actions seem in hindsight.
To quote Chuck Palahniuk: "On a long enough time line, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero."
If you give history enough time, it will always look like little has been gained in terms of eradicating oppression. Sure, some forms of oppression don't exist anymore, but society evolves other forms as a replacement.
I don't honestly believe we'll ever "figure out how to use the political process [...] to stop our government agencies from doing things that we don't like." I think history is like a power game where rules keep changing over time because one side keeps finding ways to rig the game. Sooner or later, there's enough evidence that the game is rigged and the other side realizes that it's futile to keep playing by the same rules and finds a new way to fight back.
You are quite right, and there is an older commentator than Palahniuk to invoke. The original quote comes from John Maynard Keynes in his 1923 "Tract on Monetary Reform":
But this long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is past the ocean is flat again.
Pray that we will always have someone standing up against the surveillance state.