Those are reasonable points, but I'd prefer not to be told what I think ("You seem to think rule of cool is perpetual and nonstop"), how I feel ("you ... being upset by it"), or understand ("things you don't understand").
It's possible to have a fun discussion about a hobby we share without being unpleasant, so I'm going to assume you just want a friendly chat, and respond as if that comment was respectful.
The original meme tied the rule of cool to being a good GM. I don't think that's sensible. There are lots of ways for everyone at the table to have fun contributing to the story - one of them is the rule of cool.
But there are many other ways for players to contribute, I enjoy using them as a player and a GM, so I listed some. They can be used in lots of scenarios where the rule of cool isn't applicable, and they contribute to fun.
Giving players carte blanche to warp the world whenever the GM feels like it is lame. If it's part of the system, great. If not, you're playing favourites.
I'd prefer using the system to involve players in the narrative. Stuff I've done:
When creating ambushes, the players draw the battlemap.
In Cyberpunk RED, a Rockerboy can use their influence to convince followers to do stuff. I ask my Rockerboy to describe their followers.
I ask my players to create locations and NPCs that aren't part of my planned sessions (or integral to the current arc).
I use player backstories and interactions with NPCs to create or add story arcs.
I've ported flashbacks from Blades in the Dark into other systems.
Bending the rules when it doesn't change the world is fine. A constant stream of "meh, why not? Fine by me." seems kind of lame.
"The big bump in core [inflation] was driven heavily by food prices, which have been running hot on a seasonally adjusted basis in the past three months," Porter wrote.
Yeah. At this point I try to prepare scenes rather than plots, so hopefully I'll be able to use my painstakingly prepared battlemap later, rather than not at all.
But it's fun when the players throw a total curveball, and I need to come up with something on the spot.
"Fortnite's signatory company, Llama Productions, chose to replace the work of human performers with A.I. technology," the statement added. "Unfortunately, they did so without providing any notice of their intent to do this and without bargaining with us over appropriate terms. As such, we have filed an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB against Llama Productions."
The filing itself says: "Within the past six months, [Epic Games], by its agents and representatives, failed and refused to bargain in good faith with the union by making unilateral changes to terms and conditions of employment, without providing notice to the union or the opportunity to bargain, by utilizing AI-generated voices to replace bargaining unit work on the Interactive Program Fortnite."
It sounds like they're unhappy with the behaviour of the studio Epic contracted the work to. I think.
We don't do that here. The GM provides the model of physics the players accept and expect. If the GM just says "nah" when stuff is inconvenient, players don't know what to expect, and the world becomes inconsistent.
A big part of the GM's fun in TTRPGs is improving off that. Players always ruin my plans, but that's part of the game.
Infrastructure users absolutely have to be segregated by speed. Cyclists and pedestrians each need their own space (which is separate from that of motorized vehicles).
It's great to see cities being built that accept that reality.
Doh! Thanks! I'll update the link.
FWIW the link you provided has text for me on desktop.