And now you’re growing initiative into a full blown socialist movement. You can’t add worker rights into this movement without grossly changing scale of the movement.

I’m sure everyone is for better treatment of developers but in the context of the movement they’re not important. The movement is concerned with preservation not with who will do the preservation. The movement in general has positioned itself to not care how preservation happens as long as it happens. If a game company wants to fire everyone and then hire a completely new team to do the preservation then as far as the movement is concerned as long as games get preserved that’s just fine.

The second point is that the movement has focused primarily on the EU market (because initiatives elsewhere have failed). EU already has pretty good labor laws and most of the things mentioned in the article are already enforced to some extent in the EU. Furthermore most layoffs happen outside the EU so there’s also very little argument to be made that EU should step in on the mistreatment of labor. And if it should why just game developers, why not broaden it to other industries where people also get mistreated?

The inclusion of labor rights is just going to derail what the movement wants to achieve in the EU. Instead of trying to fix the entire world all at once lets start by fixing what is realistic to fix and fix the rest when Americans stop being corporate cucks. After all the vast majority of labor mistreatment happens in the US.

Which would contradict their statement:

Our payment network follows standards based on the rule of law. Put simply, we allow all lawful purchases on our network. At the same time, we require merchants to have appropriate controls to ensure Mastercard cards cannot be used for unlawful purchases, including illegal adult content.

A store named “use these toys on fake dolls of children” is horribly distasteful but not illegal.

I can agree that maybe that type of content shouldn’t be sold, but I also understand that’s my personal opinion and not necessarily the law. Me, you or Visa or Mastercard should not be in a position to dictate whether it’s acceptable to sell such content.

I used to watch honestly because it was relatively straightforward. You find a show you want to watch and you press play. But it’s gotten to a point where I need to scour the web to find which streaming platform has what I want to watch, then subscribe, then have a talk with the missus to see which subscription I can cancel and then I can watch what I want. What ended up breaking the camels back was when the first seasons of The Rookie were on one streaming platform and the later seasons were on another streaming platform and the only reason they were this way was because of some stupid licensing agreements.

I decided that if I’m going to waste so much time juggling different streaming services while paying for the privilege to juggle them I might as well take that time and money and not spend it on a problem the streaming platforms themselves created. If I can create a better service in my home I’m not going to waste money on a subpar service. The only service I’m paying for is my local IPTV because they’re local and they’re actually providing a good service.

And what happens to the heat? Heat can’t just magically disappear which means water can’t cool without heat being able to dissipate somewhere. So it would have to dissipate heat into the dome. What happens to the dome if you keep pumping hot vapor into the dome? It heats up. If it heats up the water vapor stops cooling and the entire cooling system stops working.

I’m not saying it couldn’t work in theory, I’m saying it doesn’t work in practice because the dome would have insanely big, maybe the size of small nation big.

Then as long as you’re fine with the poor performance Oblivion remaster is excellent. It’s Oblivion (almost) as you remember it, the main difference being the ability to sprint (which doesn’t actually change) and fixed attribute points leveling (which I welcome because the original levelling system was stupid where you needed to level minor skills to get +5 bonuses for attributes).

Shamelessly plugging https://linuxupskillchallenge.org/ because if you’re going to set up an Ubuntu home server you might a well know how to use it.

You fucking donkey.

Next time read your source instead of believing you can’t be wrong because you’re too technologically inept to use the fucking find function.

I’m done putting up with your aggressive bullshit.

I didn’t lie about anything. The image made two statements. First statement is that dogs can identify us as humans. That statement is irrelevant to this discussion because I didn’t address it all. The second statement is that cats view humans as “terrible incompetent cats”.

The person you replied to asked for a source about those claim but they didn’t clarify which statement they wanted a source for. Now asking source for the second statement can be interpreted three ways. The person asked for a source for cats viewing as cats, cats viewing us as “terrible incompetent” or the previous two together that cats view us as terrible incompetent cats.

You gave a source for that statement but you also didn’t clarify which part the source verifies. So taking the 3 interpretations:

• If the person was asking the source for cats viewing us as cats your source is fine.
• If the person was asking the source for cats viewing us as “terrible incompetent” your source directly disproves that statement. Therefor your source is no fine.
• If the person was asking the source for cats viewing us as cats and as “terrible incompetent” your source is true on the first part but false on the second part which means your source is not fine. If you can’t understand why go back to school to learn classical logic.

Two out of three interpretations means your source is wrong. Just because you want to believe you only addressed that one interpretation where your source is right doesn’t mean you actually did because you never specified which part of the statement you gave a source for. How are we supposed to know that was what you meant?

To put it as plainly as I can put it, had you said “This source only shows that cats view us as cats” I would’ve had no issue with your comment. You left your source open to interpretation and 2 of the 3 interpretations meant you were wrong.

Now this conversation had been over many comments ago if you had just gone “I didn’t think it could be misinterpreted, my bad.” but you continue to demand you were never wrong in the first place. That is why you are getting downvoted and I’m not getting downvoted. You being an insufferable asshole who can’t properly express themselves also doesn’t help. And just to be very clear, I haven’t downvoted you once because unlike you I don’t actually care about upvotes or downvotes.

I already said this conversation is over, your unnecessarily aggressive and rude comment got removed and you still come back with not one but two comments. Do your mental health a service and log off for the next week because you’re acting like a nutcase.

In online stores Visa and MC are the big ones. If we exclude China, Visa and MC make up 90% of all online purchases worldwide. For online stores they are the two players who matter. Losing one is a significant loss of revenue, losing both will kill the store.

I’m just going to ignore the absolute nonsense you just wrote and say that it’s not my problem if you’re incapable of acknowledging a mistake. Go have a day and don’t bother me.

The image says that. The other person asked for a source for that statement and you gave sources without correcting the terrible incompetent part. I think it’s a fair interpretation that you implied it.

I added that part specifically because it’s so obvious. It’s so obvious we don’t even think about all the fine motor movements we can do with excellent precision that no other animal in the world could even do.

From the very Nat Geo article you linked:

I’ve read articles where you’ve said cats think of us as big, stupid cats. Is that accurate?

No. In the book [I say] that cats behave toward us in a way that’s indistinguishable from [how] they would act toward other cats. They do think we’re clumsy: Not many cats trip over people, but we trip over cats.

But I don’t think they think of us as being dumb and stupid, since cats don’t rub on another cat that’s inferior to them.

They might not be able to understand that we’re a completely different species but they do understand that we’re not your average cat (another evidence of that is that cats generally don’t meow between each other but they do meow with humans) and they definitely don’t view us as terrible or incompetent. They view us as clumsy because based on how they see the world we are in general pretty clumsy.

Bit off topic but another interesting fact is that if we factor in fine motor skills we’re the least clumsiest animal on the planet. Cats have excellent gross motor skills but you don’t see them threading a needle. And very few animals could thread a needle because, well for a multitude of reasons but primarily because most animals simply can’t get that level of precision out of their limbs or mouth or trunk or whatever they would have to use. But for us that is so easy we don’t even question the level of complexity and precision we’re showcasing. Gross motor skills looks like it might bring us down but we’re actually very adaptive when it comes to gross motor skills (see parkour, rock climbing or just gymnastics). We simply don’t spend time developing those skills because most of us never need it. We don’t need to climb over fallen trees or crawl under bushes because if a lot of people need to use that route we just pave a road.

When you don’t know how to pass others you’re only as fast as the driver ahead of you.

Obviously Hamas is supplying Canada with fentanyl and Canada is sending it across the border with those filthy American immigrants who then sell fentanyl to real Americans, you know the white kind of American. You don’t need to be a conservative crackhead to see that, you just need to be a conservative.

I would like to be excited for a revival of an series that hasn’t seen a game in 20? years, but the trailer and the article just comes across as a bog-standard open world action game with RPG elements. They need to give something more because this doesn’t excite me at all.

You do realize that was not the end of the sentence?

But just for you I added the word games and then moved the structure around.

I’ve started Shadow of War. It’s sad what WB did with the game when it released, but in its current state it’s a blast to play. The pacing is just a smidge to the slow side but I’m taking it more as a marathon than a sprint, because I am enjoying the core gameplay loop. It’s one of the few games where dying is fun. The story is essentially nonsense and you can see plot twists coming from a mile away, but you’re not playing it for the actual story. You’re playing it for the stories the nemesis system creates.

It’s such a simple system that just creates such memorable stories and enemies. In my playthrough I have an ork who killed me, I then got revenge on them by poisoning them, they then came back from the dead as a legendary with epic poison trait and now I run away from him because he keeps getting stronger. I have another ork who followed me from one area to another, he’s an epic ork with iron will (meaning I can’t turn him to my side) and I keep humiliating him in hopes that eventually I can break his iron will trait. No luck so far but I’ll keep trying.

If anyone is planning on playing it my recommendation is to either start on the hardest difficulty (and focus on collecting skill points because the game does get easier one you have more skills unlocked) or raise the difficulty as you progress until dying is relatively common. You’re simply not going to get the full nemesis system experience if you’re never dying.