It’s just p2w with extra steps. Pay to get stronger, or pay someone to play for you to get stronger. When games are designed to either make you play a lot or pay to get stuff to make you stronger, some people will gladly pay to either feel powerful, or just skip enough of the grind that they can focus on what’s fun.
I kind of get it, but at the point where I’d be spending hundreds or make someone play for me, I’d just look for a different game.
Just fyi you cannot really stop seeding completely, torrents work in tiny chunks and the moment you have one of them you can provide it to others.
My problem isn’t my job, I am completely fine with that, it’s the way I barely function in my personal life, and a lot of that isn’t related to the structure of our society at all. There could be less friction in a few places yes but that wouldn’t completely fix my issues either.
Heating. Swapping which is far above the price of a used car.
Edit: i realize now you said water heater, but switching off gas generally involves swapping the entire heatinf system, the costs of which are usually 5 digit for a single family home.
HOA plus calling a priest to have the house blessed certainly point in that direction though. But I don’t think that would be legal everywhere even there. Isn’t much use to you though if the neighbour is the kind of psycho to shoot someone over this.
It would need to have an atmosphere, so asteroids and most (all? Idk not an astronomer) moons are out.
Mars might be feasible at some point in the far future, but there’s still the lag problem of 3-20 minutes depending on time of year, so not very useful for anything user facing.
I should’ve clarified, with “this” i mean more the general sentiment about regulation of these lootboxes that I’ve seen in other contexts as well - other than the general topic I don’t really have an opinion on the lawsuit other than it seeming a bit ridicous to reimburse every customer in full.
There is one core difference to most other lootboxes, and it’s that the skins you get from them have a tangible real world value. It is actually, in every way, resemblant of a slot machine. Put in money, receive an amount of money that is less than what you put in on average (though I guess it’s never 0).
I’d have far more support for this if we didn’t have something matching this entirely for decades, completely legal for kids, with the only difference being that you get a physical item instead of something digital. Of course, I’m referring to trading cards. By all means regulate both, but regulating the digital version while not touching the physical one is insane.
Which studies? A quick search doesn’t seem to confirm that at all. From checking some of those studies, there seems to be a weak/low certainty correlation of lower meat consumption with lower cancer risks, a correlation (with geographical differences) of meat consumption with being overweight, but also other factors like smoking and low physical activity which really call into question whether other studies took that into account, and also a correlation between higher meat consumption and lower risk for depression (which I would also call into question given meat consumption’s correlation with high socioeconomic status).
All I can get from those metastudies is a big nothing burger of “maybe”'s in either direction.
You can’t argue “this looks like a wasp so it is a wasp” and then extend from that to “and because of evolutionary history, all these other things that don’t look like wasps are also wasps”
Defining groups of species with a common word is always going to be ambiguous, but you need to stay consistent in what you use to define it. By the same logic you can argue that humans are fish, because whales clearly are fish if you just look at them, and whales and humans are both mammals.
I’ve always acted assuming this to be possible, but it used to require either an unhinged individual or some other reason for a very dedicated investigation. The barrier being potentially that much lower is scary, particularly for anyone with a bit of internet fame that would rather stay anonymous
Having steam installed both ways was the easiest way to be logged in to 2 steam accounts simultaneously.
But also why does it matter, the whole point of arch is that you can turn it into whatever the hell you want. If that means using discover as your main source for programs, then so be it.
Nitro is pretty popular. I know a lot of people including myself that cancelled it over the age verification bs.
They still clearly make money through ads and at the very least they scan messages for spam prevention, but also the fact that they are able to guess users age based on discord usage implies they’re profiling users. For which they probably also utilize message content.
I am nervous walking in the dark by myself. I simultaneously am relatively tall and will be perceived as male by anyone, so I also try to be wary of how I might make anyone else nervous.
The actual experience that most women have of smaller aggressions even in safer contexts probably also plays a role. I’m probably nervous walking alone at night because of a combination of being physically quite weak in spite of my looks, having experienced bullying throughout my childhood so “unpleasant random encounters” is a concept engraved into my brain, and because I’m affected by reading/hearing about any kind of assault happening to people walking alone.
Replace the bullying with “random men being assholes/threatening/worse” and most women have all 3 of those factors as well.
Someone… touched what some stranger is wearing to remove it… and it wasn’t an emergency???
What the fuck is wrong with people
This isn’t really about the EU or any government, this is bankers and CEOs being <insert derogatory term of your preference>.
Is it that surprising? Age play is a thing, plus so much porn has actresses dressed up to look like a child for some reason (the reason is people are into it). It’s just that, same as any other fetish that will harm people if acted on, 99% of that 1.5% are just gonna be normal about it and not diddle kids.
With the amount of random attention from men women get, the rate doesn’t have to be very high for it to be regular, particularly when you add selection bias that people who react like that are probably more likely to approach someone in the first place.
And while I would agree it’s probably higher than 1%, 1% really sounds lower than it is - that would be 40 million people globally. If it’s 5% it’s 200 million and there are still almost 4 billion that are completely normal.
The sad reality is that it just doesn’t take high numbers for that kind of experience to be a regular occurence.
I get it though, even if only 1% of men react violently to direct rejection, it makes sense to be careful. Not a lottery you want to play.
So much of dating dynamic feels like it’s just been ruined by a few assholes, and the internet giving those assholes more reach only exacerbates it.
That’s not what fascism is either lol
I wouldn’t call china fascist, though doubtlessly authoritarian. But I don’t have nearly as much info on china, it seems to me the persecution of minorities is less of a central political scapegoat and more some weird side thing. But without speaking chinese, I might be wrong. The US had plenty of fascist characteristics at this point and is rather open about the persecution.