The way the score is calculated is hidden from the public

I mean…technically, I guess, the specific parameters are hidden? But the meaningful actions - the ways in which you can improve your score - are extremely clearly advertized.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not exactly a passionate advocate for the system - but it’s nowhere near as obfuscated as people claim. And if you accept the premise that there needs to be some algorithmic way to evaluate someone’s creditworthiness, “their past reliability in repaying debts” is a pretty reasonable choice.

packaging woes

My own hot take is that I hear this criticism of Python a lot, but have never had anyone actually back it up when I ask for more details. And I will be very surprised to hear that it’s a worse situation than Java/TypeScript’s.

My unpopular opinion is that DLC is not, in and of itself, bad. If you don’t want it, don’t buy it! If you do want it - great, no problem! In a world without DLC, you either have to buy the whole game, or not. If you tried it and didn’t like it, you have wasted the whole price of the game. Whereas in a DLC system, you’ve spent the price of the base game, but that’s effectively just a fraction of the total game price. You risked less.

What is a problem - and what I think most people who think they’re mad about DLC are actually mad about - is charging a price that isn’t commensurate with the amount of content you get. If a full game is “worth” $60, and it’s split up into a $20 base game and 4 $10 DLCs - great, everyone is (or, should be!) happy. But if the publisher charges $60 for $20-worth of base game and then charges for DLC on top, you should be pissed - but you should still be pissed about that mispricing even if the DLC didn’t exist. Yes, DLC is the reason why that pricing strategy is adopted - but that doesn’t mean that DLC itself is inherently bad. There are possible implementations that are not flawed.

The Vegan Society says that “In dietary terms (Veganism) denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.”

Vegan.com says “The word vegan was originally defined as a diet free of meat, dairy products, and eggs. The term now also refers to any item, from shoes to shampoo, made without animal products.”

Both pages, and the Wikipedia article, do mention the ethical considerations, but all make it clear that that is distinct from dietary Veganism.

It’s all very well to say that there is a deeper philosophy and decision-making framework driving one’s choices than simply “meat bad” - and that’s a noble motivation! - but you appear to be in the minority in your claim that a vegan diet can still include animal products. Maybe vegan-inspired, maybe “ethically aligned with Veganism”, but not “a vegan diet”.

EDIT: to be clear - from everything I can tell, Veganism is a sensible, moral, responsible, ethical, frugal choice; most people could derive great benefits both to their health and their wallet from drastically reducing or entirely cutting out meat and animal products, as well as benefitting the world in general. It’s a noble choice, it’s one I fully support, and I’ve seriously cut down my own meat intake over the last couple years and have great admiration for people who cut it out entirely. I’m not arguing with you because I love meat or hate Veganism - I’m arguing with you because, by being a dipshit about definitions, you are undermining a worthwhile cause and making it look ridiculous to people sitting on the fence.

The mental gymnastics here are fascinating. It’s as if you thought “Veganism has good effects. Therefore, Veganism is good. Therefore, not-Veganism is bad. But people will be offended if we tell them that their well-intentioned-but-restricted choices are bad. So we should expand the definition of Veganism so that anything which is good, is Veganism.”

Congratulations! You made it a religion!

When it was invented, it was complex and annoying, even by today’s standards.