AEsheron

While it is true that will always result in a winning line, it's not true that it is the only way to force a win. Half of their moves will allow you to play adjacent to you starting corner towards an open corner and still force a win, as long as their first play isn't the opposite corner or any of its 3 adjacent spaces. In fact, if they start in one of the adjacent sides or non-opposite corners, you have 3 winning moves. If they start on a side, you can take either the open, non-opposite corner, the side leading to that corner, or the middle. If they start in a non-opposite corner, you can take the first two moves above, or the opposite corner.

That's not true, you can force a tie at worst from a middle start. The issue is, if you start middle, you can only force a win if they take a side, not a corner. If you start corner you can force a win as long as they don't take the middle.

Yeah, I think all of New England is down for this. Please.

Even more specifically, if we are talking a temporal teleport, then this shouldn't be a surprise. Most mainstream fiction uses teleports for time travel, pop out of one time and into another without experiencing the time between. As opposed to the device Farnsworth made in The Late Philip J. Fry, where they actually just change speed through time instead of skipping through it. In the latter case, you shouldn't have to worry about this issue at all. But with a teleport, any teleportation device is simultaneously a temporal and spatial teleport, due to causality and the nature of spacetime. So any teleport would need spacetime coordinates, not just spatial or temporal coordinates.

It has very begrudgingly forced me to kind of sort of enjoy it maybe just a little. But at the moment, trying to recall it is only giving me the Firefly theme, and that is nice, I'll just enjoy this for a bit.

It's Deathworlders all over again.

Yeah, what the fuck? Take us with you.

It's been a long time, but I very much remember it being played as the powers that be are simply afraid to acknowledge that V is back. They do attack Harry's story some to help justify keeping their heads in the sand, but that didn't seem like the point to me.

It wasn't as unrelated as it might appear. Firstly, they used their D+ account to make their Disney account. Secondly, the whole point of that argument was that in the Disney account EULA, the relevant one, there is an arbitration clause. They only brought up the D+ account in passing because it has the same clause, emphasizing that they had to read and agree to the clause twice, and if they didn't catch it it's not Disney's fault they lied about reading it. They basically said "look, this is an issue regarding the Disney account, and they said right here they read and understood the terms that include arbitration. And here, they read and agreed to the exact same terms a few months earlier on D+. This shouldn't be any surprise if they were truthful when they claimed to have read it."

Disclaimer, arbitration clauses are bullshit and need to be reworked/eliminated as they are generally very anticonsumer and I don't think it's good that they have that clause. But accepting that this exists, Disney didn't really do anything particularly scummy.

I can't speak to the rest, but the wobbly vertex morphing is a classic hallmark of ps1 graphics.

To be a bit more precise, people did sometimes carry swords on their back, but generally not into battle. It was more comfortable for travel, but impossible to draw, so when they were expecting trouble they would move it to the hip.

Specifically skeletons are a big deal. Lots of games edit them out, WoW had alternate models for the Undead players, who generally have exposed bone joints and other bits of bone protrusions, to cover them all in flesh. I think it is sometimes OK to use skeletons as enemies, but never for player characters, IIRC.