The questions in your post really got me thinking more about what part of the game we want to change rather than
simply change for the sake of change.
Not exact matches
Active implies investors — or, more specifically, fund managers — making
changes to a portfolio
simply for the
sake of change.
What is proper to
change of place (no matter what physical reality lies behind it, it can be used
simply as a model
for the
sake of metaphysical argument), is that to leave one place is to occupy another
of the same ontological rank and vice versa.
If they were
simply looking to
change the rules just
for the
sake of living the way they wanted to then our protests would be more justified.
This isn't a case
of «what have you done
for me lately» as that would imply that things went off the rails fairly recently, and it's certainly not a
change simply for the
sake of change scenario, as we're not so naive to believe that this alone would guarantee long - term success, this is a measured response based on YEARS
of questionable decisions, failed tactics, boardroom blunders, unprecedented losses and a level
of dishonesty never before seen at our club.
It's obviously not a game -
changing thing, but it's cute and gives the game more charm and identity, rather than other games that might not even bother with it,
simply for the
sake of realism or lack
of vision.
-- but a lot
of the
changes are
simply just
for the
sake of change, and that's just silly.
A lot
of this could mitigated by a consistent look — just any kind
of unified design language — but instead it feels like Samsung was just trying to squeeze in as many
changes as possible,
simply for the
sake of making
changes.