SpaceBishop

💯 Playing through Red Dead Redemption 2 and there is so much detail and it's beautiful.

...but then when I'm trying to pick out herbs and plants and it's all so beautifully rendered I don't know what plants and flowers can be harvested and which are just there to be pretty. Dead Eye is a lifesaver for that.

That desaturated-with-highlighted-items vision is a design choice that does solve a problem even in realistic worlds -- even if it's just to show players something the character can see but is hard for the player to spot.

It's a weird strategy to show up and explain how one team operates without rules and lies about everything, but it's the other guy that's the problem. I can see that you're one good faith fella.

Cool story, bro (or sis, or comrade, or whatever, idk you). Was it the Democrats 40 years ago that discarded ages-old decorum, stared down stare decicis, and said "nah, that ain't for me," to then threw out established case law, casting doubt on the legitimacy of 1/3 of the co-equal branches of government? Oh, no? It wasn't? It was a group of far-right so-called "Christians" put on the SCOTUS by Republicans?

Yeah, that's certainly how I remember it happening, and, you know, objectively true, so thanks anyway.

Oh you're trying so hard to build a strawman! How adorable.

Roe was established case law. Reproductive rights were settled. Blaming Democrats when the actions of Republicans baselessly dismissed it is moronic.

Democrats did this by not codifying

This kind of gaslighting should not be tolerated. Everyone take a moment and block that troll.

That's like saying that the burgler that bypassed your locks by smashing a window is fully justified because you didn't put cages over the glass. Reproductive rights were protected by 50 years of precedent. Roe was established case law for decades and was overturned by a court that rejected how the judicial branch was working and has worked for centuries by ignoring precedent, accepting a case on weak standing to challenge it, and arguing that the established case law was wrong on shakey arguments.

Don't let right-wing nuts lie to you about objective reality.

I think the Zelda Oracle games were pretty rad. Easy games to play, and for the truly committed you had cross progression between the two games to complete quests across Seasons and Ages. The two games had completely different maps and dungeons to explore with different items in each. They were a dual release that weren't just the same maps with slightly reshuffled enemies like the Pokémon games were. I remember trading my copy of Seasons to my friend for his copy of Ages and then checking in with each other to see where we were and if either of us had discovered any secrets that we hadn't found in our respective playthrough.

I saw the live performance of Somewhere I Belong, and the final verse when it goes "I will never be anything else until my wounds are healed" Chester delivers the line with such intensity and aggression. I was hoping to hear Emily match that. Instead she turned the microphone to the audience. It was the right move for a live performance, but how do I accept you when you can't prove that this band is somewhere you belong in that performance?

I think she has great potential, the new song definitely sounds like the direction that Linkin Park has been going, and I am excited to see where they go with Emily. But I will forever miss Chester.

Shit, that's a bad look for Disney. The idea that someone could sign up for a 30-day trial to some product and completely lose their right to a jury trial for life against any and all companies associated with the parent company is absurd.

The attorney was right to describe that as preposterous. And if the court cedes and tosses the trial, it sets a chilling precedent against consumer rights.

... of children.

Historically, that would be true, but this SCOTUS is wild. Standing doesn't mean much anymore. Take, for example, the recent ruling from the anti-lgbt web developer in the 303 Creative v Elenis decision. Smith had not started a business at the time the original suit was filed, and, after she had begun operating, shr did not have any requests to make such a wedding site as described in the suit. During an appeal, she provided a false request -- for a man already married to a woman -- as her standing. Her standing was obviously bullshit; she had none.

Not that it really helps. Our current SCOTUS will certainly not agree to hear a case that could actually benefit us and defend our civil rights. We should probably start fresh with a new SCOTUS if we want any of that.

Yes, and you can tell how ineffectual it is with how much effort they are going through to stop it!

Conservatives. Shitting their pants to own the libs.