Daily Mail is not a credible source

Some of those that work forces…

Many people have a poor understanding of human communication and say things like “I don’t do small talk”. They don’t seem to understand that you use small talk (eg: what did you do this weekend?) to launch into more personal talk (eg: “I saw this doom metal band The Well play at so-and-so bar. So good! Do you like metal?”)

Sometimes people do like the grey text here and answer small talk questions in short, dead end, ways, and unless you’re trying to kill the conversation that’s probably self sabotage.

If this is tinder or similar, she should unmatch.

If it’s just regular messaging, yeah the guy should back off.

What I was getting at is why is the signal like that if most people don’t have the hardware to utilize it, and it’s a really bad experience with the more common hardware. Unless people with basic stereo is actually the minority

Do most people have that kind of setup? Almost everyone I know is watching from a basic tv, a shitty laptop, or with midrange headphones

Kind of reminds me of when people are like “If you don’t believe in hell why aren’t you raping and murdering people?”. It says a lot about the speaker

I read they’re using react, the JavaScript library, for the start menu. If true that strikes me as insane

Not sure if you’re being entirely serious, but I do find it funny when people (often women in this context) self sabotage like this. By half assing 20 conversations, some number of good matches will bounce because you look like a boring person who can’t converse. You’re more likely to end up with someone who doesn’t care about your words, and then will probably treat you badly.

Well, there’s https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_literacy but that’s not written for children

I don’t think, of your examples, trackers and surveillance are a big part of it. Understanding subtext and credibility are more relevant. Like, recognizing when a newspaper always uses passive voice when cops do bad (eg: “man killed after violent police encounter” vs “police fatally shoot man waiting at bus stop”), but active voice for other people (eg: “Looters destroy small business shops” vs “Downtown shops damaged during anti-corruption protests”)

Also in fiction, being able to take away more than just the plot. Like you can read Dracula as just a book about a guy that bites people, but there are way more ways to read it. When someone makes a movie out of the story, notice what parts they keep, emphasize, and drop.

Easier and harder are not the goal posts being discussed.

Back when game design was an actual artform, having a boss who’s easy with one build but terrible against another up-to-then valid build indicates BAD GAME DESIGN

“easy”

easy

EASY

Are you kidding me right now? Is this a bit?

Your post was nonsense. “You can’t have a boss that is strong against something else that used to work” is a stupid design “rule” you made up. Like every game that has meaningfully different builds is going to have parts that are easier or harder for a build.

Who the fuck is still eating at McDonald’s? I mean, obviously a lot of people, but why? It’s not good and it’s not cheap. Maybe food deserts? I can get a better burger and fries and drink from a local place cheaper and faster (if I still bought meat, anyway)

People get comfort and refreshment from all sorts of unhealthy things. People do all sorts of unhealthy things.

Yes, for example, famously pokemon with the elemental gyms was bad design. You should totally be able to use your fire pokemon to fight the fire gym. /s

And certainly no other game has something like a fire elemental boss that you can’t use fire on.

There’s just such a contingent of people who get off on hating from soft. It’s tedious as heck

No! Why are so many so bad at metaphors and comparisons!

Watching a movie and having an emotional reaction is not the same as believing a fancy auto complete is a real meaningful interactive relationship on par with a boyfriend!

Too many people do not want violence of any form ever, so they’ll just let maga do what they want.

If the rules prohibit something, and they do it anyway, you need to stop them. Much like the paradox of tolerance, the rules are a treaty not a suicide pact.

Except for some optional bosses I found it pretty chill. Most of the optional bosses that are hard have easier ways of dealing with them, too.

Using a tower shield and poke weapon was the easiest playthrough of the game I’ve done. Easiest of all the from soft games I’ve played, even. The final boss went down in 4 minutes and I barely had to heal.

I think a problem some people get with these games is they have a sort of tunnel vision. They’ll have a scimitar and lose to the boss lose to the boss lose to the boss, and they don’t really consider trying something else.

Click bait should not be encouraged.