find possibilities how ML can support people with certain tasks
Marxism-Leninism? 
Oh, Machine Learning. 
Science is not political
in an ideal world maybe, but that is not our world. In reality science is always always political. It is unavoidable.
Just going off your list: I never played Demon Souls, Uncharted, Ratchet+Clank, or Death Stranding, so no comment on those. Well, actually I started Uncharted and felt like I was watching a bad movie where I could make the main character run around and shoot sometimes. Didn’t feel like a game, so I gave up after a couple hours. Might have grown on me, but I didn’t care enough about what I did play to even want it to.
I loved Horizon (ZD and FW). It wasn’t perfect, but it very much clicked for me. I really liked the feel and execution of the combat, I liked the world, I liked the main character, I liked the scifi backstory. Did not like the in-game contemporary human/tribe story lines at all though. (Sylens was cool though. RIP Lance Reddick.)
Bloodbourne - took a while for me to get into it, but when I was able to “get it” I became addicted and loved it, though also found it very frustrating. However, I now understand why it is so praised and beloved and can mostly agree. I’m glad I decided to try it despite beforehand not wanting to because I was afraid it would be too difficult.
God of War - It was definitely well made. Didn’t care for the boss fights at all. I did quite like the feel of the combat, the flow of the controls, which is important to me. Have not played the new-ish sequel. Honestly, I’m having trouble remembering the game and what I thought of it at the time, so I guess not too memorable.
Ghosts of Tsushima - I… yeah, I enjoyed it. Mostly. But it was really wearing on me by the end, and I only kept at it due to a sense of obligation and sunk cost. It was fun for a while, but just felt so rote by the end. And all along it felt super gimmicky even for an open world game. It’s hard to summarize why without going into way too much detail. I had issues with the story too.
The Last of Us - It had that movie thing going which I do not care for. However, I was able to get past that and enjoy it mostly. It did pass the time ok. Did not “feel good” to play though. Felt clunky and often tedious. Glad I played it, but think it was grossly overrated. The much-lauded story is just mediocre and cliche at best. Didn’t play the sequel.
Spiderman - I admit I really liked swinging around the city. It felt good. But beyond that, fuck that game. Disgusting copaganda. Up with which I will not put. Like, Last of Us and Tsushima may have had their own kinds of reactionary themes, but Spiderman felt like a Clinton liberal and thin blue line chud set aside their differences so they could come together and make that abomination of setting and plot. Never finished it.
Yeah, this is silly (and fun) but avoids the real problem of course. The question can be like you said, “which came first, the chicken or the chicken’s egg?” And for those that still want a literal answer, wikipedia says:
If the question refers to chicken eggs specifically, the answer is still the egg, but the explanation is more complicated.[8] The process by which the chicken arose through the interbreeding and domestication of multiple species of wild jungle fowl is poorly understood, and the point at which this evolving organism became a chicken is a somewhat arbitrary distinction. Whatever criteria one chooses, an animal nearly identical to the modern chicken (i.e., a proto-chicken) laid a fertilized egg that had DNA making it a modern chicken due to mutations in the mother’s ovum, the father’s sperm, or the fertilised zygote.
As an alternative, though it’s a bit more of an ungainly mouthful, I like: “which came first, the first species to lay an egg or the egg of the first species to lay an egg?” That one is a bit harder but you might still be able to tease out an answer. That way I think it gets a bit more into the problem of qualitative vs quantitative when you do (which is partly why I say below that this is related to the problem of the heap). Of course it’s really meant to be a philosophical problem anyway, and in that sense, it remains a paradox. It’s a way of making an analogy for a “causation dilemma” and gets at the idea of infinite regress and the paradoxes that brings up. It’s also related to the sorites paradox or the problem of the heap, which actually is an element discussed in Marxist (more because of Engels) dialectics.
Yes, typically hexbear replies are right.
It’s not unfortunate though, it’s simply a matter of having an understanding of the world and a willingness to accept it and engage with it. It’s too bad that you seem not to want that understanding or that you lack the willingness to accept it.
How can you possibly square that first short sentence with the second? Are you really that willfully hypocritical? Yes, “your” science is political. No science escapes it, and the people who do science thinking themselves and their work is unaffected by their ideology are the most effected by ideology. No wonder you like your bubble - from within it, you don’t have to concern yourself with any of the real world or even the smallest sliver of self reflection. But all it is is a happy, self-reinforcing delusion. You pretend to be someone who appreciates science, but if you truly did, you would be doing everything you can to recognize your unavoidable biases rather than denying them while simultaneously wallowing in them, which is what you are openly admitting to doing whether you realize it or not.