That game was the most fun I’ve ever had playing a video game. Lots of other great games have happened, but the low barrier to entry (buy-to-play instead of subscription) and the reward for slotting a useful 8 skills that worked well with each other and well with the other 7 or so people in your group cannot be beat.

I’ve done some (grunt-level) work in chemical packaging. I didn’t see in the article if it specifies, but the place I worked handled tons of different types of chemicals and they’d all have their own precautions needed. If this place was the same (big if), the sprinklers are probably standard for fire, and the chemical in question should be delivered sealed in watertight drums and only opened/handled inside a small room-sized fume hood. We had specialized rooms for things like spontaneously combustible chemicals and poisonous inhalation hazards — those chemicals were never unsealed outside those rooms.

All that goes out the window I assume if this is the only chemical they handle.

Has anything reputable reported on this? Everything I’ve read has said motive is under investigation, but it’d seem a bit clearer if this is actually true and not just facebook being facebook.

I completely forgot the 12-inch one existed.

Okay, the old ones that apparently have both do have the Thunderbolt symbol on the ones that are, though, so what’s the problem?

Why would you need them on a MacBook? They’re always* Thunderbolt.

Edit: Better explained by GamingChairModel below. I entirely forgot one series of MacBook, and also forgot when the older ones did have the Thunderbolt symbol on them.

Sort of the thing that makes me think this one still has a ghost of a chance, but then I’ve liked the games The Chinese Room has made before mostly for their writing and music. I’ll probably be disappointed, but them at the helm doesn’t kill it for me like it probably does for people who wanted more of the original.

Is there a preferred metric to measure this by? I didn’t play the first one, but Wikipedia says “polarizing but ultimately positive,” and there’s an 80/100 metacritic score, for whatever that’s worth.

Your word picture is just so funny that I want to root for the game’s success just to be the person that quotes this comment and @s you, even if I tend to agree with your assessment.

And maybe I’m using it wrong, but it just…doesn’t work. I use spotlight search on my MacBook to find programs and things and it just finds them. It’s fast enough to be faster than me opening things off the dock.

I try to use the search on my wife’s Win11 computer and half the time it sends me to a website for a program she already has installed.

Like if you want to imitate, even badly, the imitation should at least be functional.

Yep, definitely forgot to list this complaint. Frankly a paper with a good reputation having a left lean would seem obvious to me — the right abandoned reality a long time ago.

I think it makes more sense if you start from the supposition that centrists in America are just right-wingers who still remember how to be ashamed of their batshit views when they’re in public.

From what I’ve seen so far, a number of reasons:

1. It’s not overly accurate, with a tendency to report from a basis of American centrism as though that’s the sole metric to measure what is left and right. I assume they decided they had to pick something to base it off of, but even a lot of Americans take issue with what an American centrist considers left-wing.

2. It’s a bot, and some folks hate those enough to downvote it every time rather than block it.

3. Some folks prefer to decide for themselves what’s credible. I’ve also read comments saying they don’t like that there’s no disclaimer — plenty of people get riled when something is presented as though it’s the sole arbiter of truth.

I’ve probably missed plenty, too.

Fair amount of biblical references in it; I’d guess the poster is drawing a parallel between that and the rather unhinged nature of Christian fundamentalism. I haven’t seen anything yet to indicate motives, so we’ll all see I guess.

So the fact that the poster talked about the current candidate and the current election just flew right past you, just like the rest of the point, then? I’m not surprised.

As multiple people have already explained to you, in this instance, the Democratic candidate is the only realistic way forward. You are, stupidly, expanding that to all choices forever because, again, you can’t seem to pick up on context.

You know when a walk sign on a traffic light says “walk,” and then it changes to “don’t walk”? You don’t wander into traffic because it said walk ten seconds ago, right? The poster is trying to tell you not to walk into traffic. The next election cycle, they might say something else, because the situation may have changed. Stop reading things that aren’t there.

No one is ignoring anything. Well, except you, since you seem to need every bit of context spelled out for you before you can derive intended meaning from four sentences. Like fuck man, I don’t know how you get through the day with that level of incompetence.

They did.

He was not acquitted.

The charges were dropped once the massive pile of police incompetence met the shitstorm of public scrutiny.

First the charges were dismissed without prejudice so the prosecutor could dig and see if he could find some way to make it Walker’s fault that cops killed his girlfriend. Then, when he couldn’t (because of the aforementioned appalling incompetence), and public scrutiny didn’t decrease to a point where he could quietly pressure Walker into a cell anyway, they were dismissed with prejudice.

It is important to not make shit up about this. If the public scrutiny hadn’t been as intense, it is entirely possible that they would have dragged him to trial and pressured him into a plea bargain. He was lucky that the public managed to continue giving a shit for more than their usual 30-second attention span.

We all know you’re full of shit, but just in case you’re a useful idiot to conservatism instead of cynical grifter…

If you want fewer abortions, the answer has been obvious for decades — sex ed and birth control made available to everyone that wants it, which results in fewer unwanted pregnancies, which results in fewer abortions.

Your moron political group and its insistence on overturning Roe resulted in an increase in abortions. 2023 had the highest number and rate in literally decades. So if you’re dumb enough to think that’s “murdering babies,” then congrats. The people you vote for increased the body count.

*Presidential Medal of Freedom

In answer to your question, though, she’s receiving it because democracy, at least for one political party, is entirely for sale.

If the entirety of the video is summarized by the three whole sentences of context you wrote in your initial comment, it sounds even less worth a watch than I initially thought.

From what I can find in actual sources, there’s two founders, and I’m guessing your claim on the eugenics is about Greaves, who certainly sounds like an asshole if not explicitly a eugenicist, but weirdly it didn’t take a two-hour anything to read about it.

The rest of it seems to stem from something a former spokesperson wrote in a Medium article and a bunch of other asshole stunts by Greaves, who yes totally seems like an asshole. None of this took more than ten minutes of searching and reading, maybe thirty if you read slowly.

I get that you’re not the only person in the world that does this, but if you actually care to make people think about something even once, like you claim to, maybe make the one thing you link to more accessible than a two-hour slog by some random YouTuber that I’m sure is super well-known to you and all their other followers but has no recognizable credibility outside of that tiny niche.