True, although many countries in the world disagree with the US that banning firearms wouldn’t make a huge difference. By virtue of, well, them having done so and it having made a huge difference.

I think on a legal level it means it was an object that was being wielded as a weapon, and from the attack in the specific instance it was meant to kill and the object was capable of achieving that. Hence a deadly weapon.

I’ll be honest, if I roll 99 on a crit roll with a pillow I damn well expect an instant kill.

Instead of having to pay for the game’s premium battle pass or unlock that new hero through dozens of hours of gameplay, Blizzard will make Venture and all future heroes available to free for all players when they launch.

Wow, Blizzard actually taking a factually negative change back. No further modifications, no further rework, just a straight rollback of something that was a bad idea to begin with. That’s really a sign of the times changing, that always felt like something that is strictly forbidden at Blizzard! 😮

The new hero Venture is so/so though, IMO. Yeah their movement ability is awesome, but that weapon is so boring. And they hype it up so much, but it is just Sigma’s primary fire, including the ability to fire around corners and all. Unavoidable with so many heroes and not nearly enough niches for all of them that things will get doubled and tripled up, but it’s still disappointing to see something copied&pasted so directly.

Me, realizing the US had not yet banned asbestos: 😕

All my manual passwords are passphrases.

This is basically based on the idea that if the password is so strong I can no longer input it, it has no inherent value anyways. A phrase makes it easier to use entire sentences as a password and readily recall them.

Of course, these are but a minority, the rest are passkeys or passwords a manager will fill in.

It is, don’t let the haters stop you from poking fun at Star Citizen. It’s a ridiculous thing.

Only three things I can think of, two of which have been covered already:

• Battery, ideally disconnected.
• Gas, ideally add a stabilizer.
• Tires, tricky, ideally you’d move the vehicle every so often by 20-30 cm to even the load, but worse case your tires are going to wear out quite a bit quicker after a year standing on the same spot.

Oooh, excited for this. Loved Ion Fury, hope this one can keep up!

The Fairphone probably, as it’d be pretty dumb to unnecessarily use materials from child labor and other inhumane conditions where available.

It follows from this that even smarter is to just keep using the phone you are using instead of upgrading, of course.

Technically not correct, you have to undergo exothermic fusion which is not the same.

Okay, well then in that case it really wasn’t meant that way but I’m also not a native English speaker. 😞

Hrm, okay? You yourself really drank the Conservative koolaid though if you can only think in black and white with no further nuance.

Everything is a trade-off in life. Every solution costs something else. Its funny that you accuse someone who couldn’t be less conservative if they tried of that, just because I would like to actually change something, not just talk about it - and hence need workable solutions not utopian ideas. Though as I said to the op, on an utopian level I agree of course.

What do you mean? I don’t disagree, but it’s not easy to convince them of that, sadly.

A lot of these are impractical.

For example you have a lot of expenses, but you also want to remove most VAT. But you’re also freeing up income for the more poor. You don’t need to overdo giving poorer people money, it needs to be enough, not too much. There’s better ways to invest that money, for example into increasing the quality of said universally health care. You can always increase the tax on higher brackets to extreme numbers and making transferring money out more difficult.

Likewise, while I am fully behind abolishing company personhood, it is, sadly, absolutely impractical. It should happen, but it won’t.

And likewise, a separate senate can be useful, it just needs to be used differently. The idea is to have a second - smaller - group that can essentially send bills back to the bill-writing group for purposes such as “this is worded too broadly” or “this is too partisan” and so on. They cannot actually change law, they’re there to make sure that changes to law uphold a certain standard of writing and specificity.

The “article” is very clearly just a call to forther hate on SGI. It’s crazy to what lengths people go to justify their bad purchases, desperately clinging to whatever explanation they can cook up for why there is no self-blame to apply for having bought into the shit that is Suicide Squad. No no, you see, the game would have been awesome if not for that WOKE consulting company! If not for them this would have been a 10/10, I could not have known it’d be bad!

I struggle to think of an otherwise good game they have “destroyed” by “forcing” a narrative or token characters.

That is to say, I don’t think I can point to a case where the game would have been otherwise good. Adding badly written characters to bad games does make them if anything marginally better (at least they’re consistent 😅), plus unless the devs completely lost control of their own project the consultation company would not actually implement the characters. They’d give you background stories, profiles, example interaction scenes where they took scenes and re-did them with their characters, or example lists of character archetypes to utilize this profile in.

The actual (bad) writing, (bad) characters and (bad) narrative are still up to the devs to (badly) add.

(edit)
I mean just going by their official project list, I can only personally mark out Suicide Squad, BattleShapers and Sable as bad, and none of these games needed their inclusionism - such as it is, you could argue Suicide Squad makes a mockery of it anyways - to be terrible games, they were plenty able of being that on their own. Plus again, it’s the devs doing that, not the consulting company.

what makes game great is the effort put in not whether it is woke/anti-woke

More importantly, the moment someone uses the word “woke” in such a context you already know that:

• They don’t actually know what they’re talking about.
• They are the problem, not the games they’re complaining about.

If you read the list itself and the discussions about it, it’s clearly a call for harassment (the list, that is), not just a simple listing.

This reads so weird.

The company is… just a consultation company? The kind of one you’re supposed to hire when working on a script including minorities et al to ensure you’re not accidentally getting something wrong or presenting it in a stereotypical or atypical way?

And for some reason they’re angry about someone listing games they’ve worked on, as if any kind of exposure would ever be bad for a consultation company that, by its very nature, usually works in the background and hence finds it a bit difficult to get exposure?

And at the same time, someone makes a Steam curator list because they’re somehow pissed some devs are doing something devs ought to do, hire a company specialized in character writing instead of letting someone less experienced do it?

Do people really, in 2024, not have any bigger issues so they 're busty with this shit?!

(edit)
Ah, it’s a very biased “article” that clearly just wants to riff on the consulting company further as if they’re responsible for games being bad, not the devs actually making the games. I also frequently blame the visual marketing ad designer for the graphics driver crashes, aye.