Rafael

[Rafael @Rafin__R]

Just watched Bullet Train, why the fuck had I not done this before????

[Rafael @Rafin__R]

I never post anything online like ever, maybe I should start

[Rafael @Rafin__R]

@YaNeDaun1 @aubymori @meowikatze People just straight up don't read the readme though, so the problem is deeper than "releases doesn't indicate that that's where you get the releases"

[Rafael @Rafin__R]

@YaNeDaun1 @aubymori @meowikatze Also, the code is freely shared, only the releases are released, like a product, it gets a product id (version number/name) and is intended to be used

[Rafael @Rafin__R]

@YaNeDaun1 @aubymori @meowikatze People know what a product being released means, if the release only contains code, you should read the readme, either it has instructions for you, or it's just plain not made for an average user

[Rafael @Rafin__R]

@GhostofW612 @AFM_AD I can't think of a big open source project designed for non developers that requires you to compile it yourself, and all the big ones have their own website with a download button. The only moment where you'll find a repo without releases is if it's not ready for general use

[Rafael @Rafin__R]

@YaNeDaun1 @aubymori @meowikatze Because release is the thing that gets RELEASED to the public

[Rafael @Rafin__R]

@TheRatMann_ @Caleb96548726 @Eridanosvoid @o_sneedy @AnimeSerbia Because github is made for the perspective of the developer, when a project is ready to get a release build, it's called that, a *release* build

[Rafael @Rafin__R]

@N4pstr @archer_uwu

[Rafael @Rafin__R]

@ElectricDire @atlasm0m3nts dandified yum

[Rafael @Rafin__R]

@YourBestSpinel Anyway, I'm sorry if I came off as rude, just wanted to point out an argument that I've seen be used a lot and always thought was a bit silly

[Rafael @Rafin__R]

@YourBestSpinel Perhaps a different ending would be better, but definitely more complicated, and the cartoon was being pressured to end if I'm not mistaken

[Rafael @Rafin__R]

@YourBestSpinel Itself together, my point is, if someone argues that they should've shattered the diamonds, it's because they disagree with a writing decision, so using another writing decision as a defense doesn't make sense

[Rafael @Rafin__R]

@YourBestSpinel We are getting nowhere here, yes I agree it comes together in the end, but instead of using the curing of the corrupted gems as a literal argument for why the series HAD to keep the diamonds alive, it makes more sense to say that you like the conclusion and the way it ties-

[Rafael @Rafin__R]

@YourBestSpinel *mean that people

[Rafael @Rafin__R]

@YourBestSpinel That people need to like that decision, nor it means we should treat this writing decision as a universal truth when it's as simple as: the writers simply wanted to do that

[Rafael @Rafin__R]

@YourBestSpinel My problem is not with not shattering the diamonds and more with people acting as if there's logic behind it beyond the creators will

[Rafael @Rafin__R]

@YourBestSpinel Literally anything the writers wanted could be the solution, again, my main point is: "su is not a documentary" it's a narrative and it's telling a story, the writers wanted to tell a story where the diamonds aren't shattered, and that's okay, but it doesn't-