Okay, totally off topic…what is it with this annoying trend of censoring a company/name with an asterisk when it’s a subject of ire? It just bugs me - and not in a way that focuses my anger to Microsoft.

What makes me angry here is, I am 90% sure the browsers could code against this.

If the user clicks a control on a webpage one time, the stack can declare “One user click! You have earned yourself One (1) navigation.” Then, the click activates some JavaScript that moves you to a new webpage. That new webpage has an auto-loader redirect that instead runs a 300ms timeout, and then takes you to some other page. The browser, meanwhile, has seen this, and establishes “We are still only operating off of that One (1) click. So, instead of adding a new page to the user history, we’ll replace that first navigation.”

I have yet to hear a satisfactory reason as to why that’s not possible.

They’ve learned some important lessons from past games, and now must fit dat ass into the thumbnail.

This isn’t a case of fighting moral codes. This is a case of battles of safety.

There are many issues of safety that affect all people, including food safety, mental safety, economic safety. All of those have resulted in court battles, as well as court failures. Safety from violence is the basic one, and people will often need to make their decisions around it on a faster basis than courts can proceed.

That’s the practical analysis, rather than the idealistic view where every single disagreement of any kind would receive a protracted court debate with all evidence present.

People are all capable of in-the-moment vigilantism (heck, most murderers feel this way). Society can still evaluate their cases afterwards to say whether they were warranted or not. I argue people should feel some safety from repercussions if society can agree their actions demanded some form of immediacy beyond what courts could provide, and did something good for society or were necessary for their own safety.

A zealot would get no such votes unless they were given a jury of their fellow zealots, and if that’s possible then I can think of no fair justice system in such a society.

There’s still answers out there that are “more right” than others.

Jill, what do you think the price of this bag of rice is? $8.50? Unfortunately, not correct at all. Bob? The 1950s Hall of Rock and Roll on VHS? That’s a thoroughly nonsensical answer that barely even respects the question! The answer was $11.

Sentencing judge, what do you think this man’s punishment for rape should be? Nothing? Oh, wow, that’s a very obviously wrong answer! Vigilante, your go. Well, we were looking for “A life sentence with chance of parole after 30 years”, but I will say, “Shoot him in the head” is closer to correct.

I feel like some people there’s a “magic light” applied to courtrooms with judges, that makes their judgments more fair by implication. But it’s absolutely possible for three people in lawnchairs discussing matters over beer to make a more fair judgment than some judges.

Man, if I went around shooting all the people that raped and imprisoned me for years, the streets would be awash with a whole 0 gallons of blood.

I don’t know how easily I’d agree that it wasn’t self defense. If it were me, knowing someone is out there that feels vengeful towards me, and that the law has failed to challenge, does not feel like a safe situation, even if I’m not physically locked at their address.

It doesn’t seem like a very reliable plan to wait until he’s broken into your house and disabled your alarm before vigilantly grabbing your gun in time and defending yourself from him. The element of surprise is a far safer approach.

Your summary seems to imply that whatever happens to currently be written into law is considered “justice”. But we’ve always known that the law is not perfect and needs constant corrections for true fairness.

Jurors, laws, judges, witnesses, none of them are perfect. Each has stoked fears that they will overpower the rights of the others. Courts do their best to have each balancing the power of the other.

If somebody goes to the zoo, jumps in the lion pit, and throws rocks at a lion, I imagine a lot of people wouldn’t “wish the death penalty on him for his sheer offence” when he’s pulled out of the enclosure. However, I also imagine many people would feel unsympathetic if said person happened to die at the lion’s jaws, nor wish for the lion to be punished.

I have gradually wondered if the issue has not been in our obsession with plastic specifically, but our need for sanitation of every object. “We need a material that will preserve its shape in transit and operation; but we then want it to gently break down into nature when we’re done with it.” No matter what materials of what strength we invent, that’s always going to be an oxymoron. There’s a reason people criticize biodegradable materials as often falling apart.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure medicine has made tremendous advances through the preservation of sealed instruments and drugs, especially for those with sensitive immune systems. But the 3000% thorough sanitization we keep of every single object we interact with has had a very gradual impact on our planet. I kind of want to envision just how fatal of a health risk it would carry if so much of our food wasn’t triple-secure-wrapped, and whether that’s comparable to the current impact of widespread plastic.

I’m saddened that Reuse has fallen by the wayside. I brought some cleaned liquor bottles back to my store for deposit, and the clerk admitted to me they’ll just end up in the recycling chain - it’s too much effort to locate transport/handling for the bottles.

Theoretically, there should be a lot of inward transit for cities and civic centers with not much going out. There’s a very efficient mental image of dropping off 80 bottles, and picking up 80 empty bottles to bring back, but it would just take more logistics than people care for to do it that way.

This irks me a bit too.

Once in a while, I see a short video clip of “Why I’m not voting for Trump this time”. They give some good reasons - narcissism, brash rudeness, looking out for himself, etc. Of course, I salute people for having their moment of introspection. But what annoys me is, none of their reasons were less true in 2016 - and few of them ever really say they themselves changed in the intervening span.

Goalpost one is to stop supporting the guy. I’m glad for people that hit that. Goalpost two is to realize a reasonable person never should’ve supported him. Perhaps that’s a lot for some people.

thanks, your objective experiences are wrong too

Aren’t most seasonal content updates in other games free? The way I tend to see it is, they put out new gameplay content to attract attention, then entice people to pick up related cosmetic/extra items during the event.

Fun fact, the Steam Deck discord has subcommunities designed for indie developers to group with Deck-owning volunteers; since not all indie devs own a Steam Deck, they can take a look at preview builds and inform the devs about any particular issues.

Linux’s main selling point has become “It’s not Windows”. That was a boring line five years ago, but Microsoft has eagerly been trying to invent new ways to make their flagship OS worse and worse.

I’d probably accept the topic of nuance if alcohol hadn’t been involved. Once he introduced that, he’s pretty clearly a paedophile.

But yes - otherwise, I acknowledge there’s danger in too quickly labeling anyone and everyone a predator. Just like there’s furries that aren’t hurting people with weird stuff, if someone has genuinely kept distance and lack of forcefulness in what they do with a minor, it’s still BAD - it’s just not on the same vein as people who stalk and violently assault people. When I hear the idea of an 18-year-old being forever called predators/rapists for consentually dating 15-year-olds, it just sounds weird and wrong. Again, I’d call alcohol a form of forcefulness since a 12-year-old won’t be aware of its effects.

Hence why it was so incredibly satisfying to get the ruling on George Floyd, and henceforth officially refer to it as “the police murder of George Floyd” - a lot of people will even forcefully correct anyone that tries to refer to it as ‘tragic death’ or ‘accidental death’.

I could be wrong, but it might be unintentional. The algorithm seeing a process by which rage and reaction generates more views (and hence more ad revenue) and tries to see if it can get it to spread. Same thing that lead to all those stupid “open mouth yelling” thumbnails.

It’s still irresponsible, and I’m all for assuming evil out of Google, I just don’t think they’d gain much from getting you specifically indoctrinated by Ben Shapiro.

Exactly right. It’s possible there are some newer revolver models that have fixed that quirk of design, but that’s been true of all the ones I looked up YouTube videos on.