Ah, there’s the catch and confusion. Not required for single player but required for multi, I guess? Not sure how others play Civ but that’s not gonna affect me. I’ve only ever played these games solo besides a very rare duo game.

It doesn’t. They mentioned there would be a unique skin for Napoleon if you signed up but it didn’t sound required.

I think the distributed nature of Mastodon keeps government control from being an issue. It would be kind of cool as a space for citizens to ask for assistance or air grievances while giving the politicians an officially owned space for things like announcements.

Not really. Most large story DLCs for any Bethesda game require all expansions. I suspect it’s for assets, but I would also just pick the largest use case (and already owning the expansions most certainly is the largest use case) and say it’s a requirement also, so I’m not chasing down edge cases for people all day. Just the rough math of releasing something you have to support afterwards.

They are very upfront about the bot describing bias against the American center and not the global or whatever “objective” standard people try to insert. By that metric, center-left perfectly describes NYT. Their editorial board has posted multiple times describing Trump as an unfit candidate and they have historically endorsed the democratic candidate. They’re obviously not even American leftist and they’re not center-left on the global scale, but it’s all relative.

I personally like the extra information and those who don’t are free to block the bot. I have seen commentor twisting themselves into absolute pretzels to avoid admitting that they can simply block the bot.

It’s listed in the article. It’s “Forever” by Judy Blume. Not sure that I’m familiar with it.

None of that works when “because I say so” is supported by a majority of the electorate. I’m not sure where the numbers come up exactly on Walters and this specific issue, but the Oklahoma electorate is not gonna be as clean cut against this as you might hope.

Would be happy to help!

Nope! I don’t have to post to recognize horrible sources in the same way that I don’t have to write a song to know one hurts my ears to listen to.

Because Newsweek in particular deserves it? Post better sources.

sectional relations

Phenomenal

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this title. It’s not clickbait and it accurately describes the content. You’re just upset you got caught out saying reactive, incorrect things about a video you didn’t watch.

It’s nobody’s fault but your own that you did not actually watch a video or read an article. Don’t watch/read, don’t comment. Easy. The title isn’t deceptive just because it isn’t a perfect TL;DR for lazy internet forum users.

Hey, stop focusing so much on “I told ya so” to people who are definitely on your side. I was torn on it as well, but out of consideration for the potential impact being unknown. Hindsight is 20/20 and we’re all better served by not gloating if we were right and instead focusing on the future path we are now on. Let’s just keep it positive and build this victory through positivity instead of potential fractures with people who likely agree with you on the issues.

They didn’t do one in this case, but I have heard stories of these sorts of malicious actors paying people stateside or elsewhere to take the video interviews. I’ve had to do ID checks on video in recent-ish interviews.

I really agree with both of you here. While there was an article or two posted with the opposite narrative, the NYT used their editorial discretion in a fairly flagrant way on this issue. It stood in stark contrast to other issues that they have gone out of their way to keep a neutral stance on as an overall paper (which I applaud). I’m not opposed to the newsroom, editorial team, or contributing writers having a stance unlike mine. I’m not the type to say “fuck all the media” all the time and think they’re generally diverse groups of professionals trying their best and sometimes failing. The fact that the NYT op-ed page and front page were just plastered in a single perspective though, without an opposing narrative, was just really blatant on this issue.

I was one of those canceled subs. I canceled WaPo after their disastrous leadership developments too. I’m basically running on cables and international outlets now, which is a real shame because I like to read other perspectives presented well, which the op-ed teams at those agencies are capable of doing.

Oh, she’s going to do this until she dies of old age after Trump installs her as his first supreme court justice of his second term.

Last year, I did another trilogy playthrough as FemShep while I also happened to be playing Guild Wars 2 as a Sylvari woman. My double take when I realized was pretty funny. Jennifer Hale is supremely talented and she lends an air of gravitas without getting into comical over-acting. She just has a perfect voice for a badass!

This is the second time I’ve seen right wing talking points associated with this game and it’s so pathetic to try and use that to cover over your middling review scores. I mean, you run a business. If you’re not going to self-reflect on why your product didn’t do as well as you thought, not sure you’re being honest with yourself on why your product failed. That same thinking would have been present in the design and development process, preventing their product from ever getting any better. One of those reasons companies even pay lip service to DEI: it genuinely brings fresh perspectives and refines your art and product.

Anyway, I even liked this game. It’s honestly pretty fun and the zombie hordes are relatively unique for the genre. The main character isn’t some right-wing asshole and even comes off as pretty empathetic and kind, if I remember correctly. It just came out at a time of open world oversaturation and played into almost every trope of the time. I think if it came out today, (and they managed to not show their ass online) it would do a lot better. As usual, the right-wing malding is weird on top of being gross and unnecessary.

We really need an amendment or two around medical care. However, the same problem preventing that is what is causing the need in the first place: Republicans in national and state legislatures. The judiciary sucks right now, but it’s really not their job to do anything but evaluate whether this is constitutional and it likely is (in a post-Dobbs world). I’d love to see the right to privacy ruling come back, but that’s not happening. All of those assumptions can be changed with dedicated, long-term strategic voting and a bit of luck with justice health. Please vote.

Edit: Somebody replied and I have you blocked. Just don’t want you to have to wait for a response. Lemmy should really just hide my comments from you so we don’t run into this issue, but such is life.