I called them unattractive. You called that a flaw. Maybe it is. Like it or not, people prefer attractive characters in PvP hero shooters. See the outrageous success of Marvel Rivals which launched just three months after Concord. You seem to be taking this very personally. If you’re more attracted to fat, lumpy, and sexually ambiguous people, more power to you. You just don’t represent the vast majority of people who play these games.
You think we have to be attracted to morbidly obese and ambiguously sexed people in order to be accepting? What kind chronically online take is that? People are allowed to find others unattractive. In your race to be the very virtuest of all, you’ve accidentally looped around to intolerance.
I struggle to think of worse examples in the AAA space. The colours weren’t just badly complemented, but intentionally violated colour theory. Their skills had nothing to do with their aesthetic or stories. They were just kind of thrown together without any care. Why was Baz, the bulky man, given ninja-like skills? None of the characters were attractive. One was morbidly obese. Almost all of them were gender non-conforming. And the biggest sin of all: none of them were cool. They were all lame as shit. You must know all of this if you’ve been following the story and criticism. It’s fine to disagree and in many instances there is room for subjectivity, but this was one of those rare examples where we can all come together to objectively declare these characters a train wreck.
Such a comprehensive example of poor decision making at so many levels. From the decision to charge for a PvP hero shooter in a saturated market of free PvP hero shooters, to spending what appeared to be tens of millions on marketing, PR, and CGI cut scenes, to the worst character designs in living memory. It’s clear they did zero focus group testing on those characters, or if they did, they ignored all feedback. As is so common now, everyone involved in the fiasco is going to be integrated into future projects and destroy them too. They’ll learn nothing and keep doing it.
It’s funny reading this exact comment but in the reverse in conservative spaces. This is game theory in action.
Fuck cheaters. I support this. I have no issues with the potential vulnerability concerns to reduce cheating. I can’t even remember the last time kernel level anti-cheats resulted in data exploitation.
I won’t be buying BF6 unless they confirm weapons are locked to classes.
I would build a cheap PC based on a G series Intel CPU. The G7400 is cheap and will handle anything you want to transcode, plus won’t get bottlenecked with IO and other processes you might want to run later like the Arr stack. You probably don’t need more than 8GB of RAM. This will give you lots of flexibility to choose the right OS which suits you, which software you want, upgrades, and especially HDDs down the road (if you get a case with HDD slots). I started small and ended up with 15 disks over the years.
Unraid ($250) is one option but it’s expensive and buggy. TrueNAS is a very popular ZFS based solution which is free. Windows is also a surprisingly good option. It’s your lowest effort option by far. You can replicate Unraid functionality with SnapRAID and DrivePool ($50).
ChatGPT can be surprisingly useful when tackling the endless bugs and weird and unexpected differences on each Linux distro. I think you’re missing out. It shaves off 30-40% of the time it takes me to arrive at the right solution. It’s obviously not omniscient, but it provides a lot of ideas which I had not considered. Usually one of those paths works.
That’s bad, but they aren’t part of this recent censorship. If you demand a perfect solution you will be disappointed. Let’s be pragmatic. Let’s force these companies to compete for our patronage.
PayPal just announced they’ll be offering crypto payments worldwide. They’ll be offering common wallet integration for 100+ currencies. This is how we sidestep Visa and Mastercard.
It’s the reason I left New Zealand. It has become a very low trust society with a lot of competing political groups aligned on the basis of race, religion, economics, ethnicity, and political beliefs. With so many competing interests, there is very little appetite to propose and enforce broad national policies which benefit everyone. Instead, generations of Kiwis have come to believe (and rightly so) that owning a home is the only way to survive and thrive. They can’t rely on the assistance of the government. Given this, home owners (which comprise the majority of Kiwis), consistently vote for policies to keep their house prices high. This means onerous planning regulations, tax exemptions, and high immigration. Any party which deigns to upset the property speculation ponzi scheme is summarily ousted.
IMHO, the country is now in managed decline. Any serious investment goes straight into property. Entrepreneurial Kiwis leave. I was involved in several startups which had to seek funding from overseas. So they just leave. Usually to the U.S., where their investment culture and infrastructure encourages new ventures and R&D. Home owners have decided that they would rather have their children leave and watch the country burn than allow their house prices to decline. Message received. Something like a million Kiwis live in Australia now. That’s 18% of the entire country.
They seriously curtailed immigration with the new government
Carney only became PM in March. Where are you seeing statistics of a large decrease in net migration since then?
The hot dog is a little expensive but considering prices in LA these days, most of these prices are actually pretty reasonable. LA is a very high cost of living place now. Wages are far higher than almost anywhere else on the planet.
The reason that governments don’t seize assets is because it makes the country (or state) uninvestable. See what happened to Zimbabwe. Seizing assets always leads to very bad social outcomes across the board. It’s much less destructive to tax things we want to happen less. A high tax on land ownership would reduce land ownership (and demand, and therefore price).
Some countries use some combination of only permitting residents to purchase certain types of property. Denmark, for example, requires non-EU non-citizens ask for permission to purchase property. Of course this then requires very strict immigration controls. If those aren’t in place, then anyone can walk into the country and buy whatever they like, and the policy is meaningless.
If such a law came into effect, you would remove all rental properties from the market overnight. Don’t you think that would lead to catastrophic homelessness? There must be a mechanism for people and companies to buy and offer rental accommodation. A LOT of people can’t afford to buy a house.
I think the solution is clear: the business case for rental property should be made worse. A comprehensive land value tax without exemption has been championed by notable economists for more than a century. It’s as close to a perfect tax as it gets. It aligns public and private interests, which are currently opposed. Owners are encouraged to use the space efficiently, so they build up and lobby for laws which make it easier for them to build. With less demand for land, prices drop, and land prices are tightly correlated with rental rates.
Exactly. That level of control scares me.
The NGO called “Collective Shout” is behind this one. They are a feminist organisation against the objectification of women and the sexualisation of girls.
The EU is investigating a digital euro, but you won’t be pleased to learn that one of the key reasons is to increase tracking and compliance. Meaning their stated goal is to be able to restrict how the currency is used, by who, when, and on what. The EU is the very last organisation to ever create and maintain an anonymous and agnostic currency. We have that already with monero.
Queer people don’t have to be ugly and fat. What an insane take. It’s not “queerphobic” to be unattracted to people. It is homophobic (and queerphobic) to tell people what they’re allowed to be attracted to.