alilbee

Not really. Most large story DLCs for any Bethesda game require all expansions. I suspect it's for assets, but I would also just pick the largest use case (and already owning the expansions most certainly is the largest use case) and say it's a requirement also, so I'm not chasing down edge cases for people all day. Just the rough math of releasing something you have to support afterwards.

They are very upfront about the bot describing bias against the American center and not the global or whatever "objective" standard people try to insert. By that metric, center-left perfectly describes NYT. Their editorial board has posted multiple times describing Trump as an unfit candidate and they have historically endorsed the democratic candidate. They're obviously not even American leftist and they're not center-left on the global scale, but it's all relative.

I personally like the extra information and those who don't are free to block the bot. I have seen commentor twisting themselves into absolute pretzels to avoid admitting that they can simply block the bot.

It's listed in the article. It's "Forever" by Judy Blume. Not sure that I'm familiar with it.

Hey, that's a neat image. I've seen other ways of visualizing the popular vote on a map but this one looks wonky as hell and I like it.

I got this bundle and it has been really disappointing. The board games are good but the digital versions leave a lot to be desired... Lots of sync issues and UX trouble on Root. Quilts and Cats of Calico started in like 800x600 resolution and the first item in the main menu was a tutorial popup. Declined it to change my resolution and could not find a way to launch it again. Haven't tried the rest yet but given that most of them are made by Direwolf, I'm not that eager to.

None of that works when "because I say so" is supported by a majority of the electorate. I'm not sure where the numbers come up exactly on Walters and this specific issue, but the Oklahoma electorate is not gonna be as clean cut against this as you might hope.

Our individual stories do not always translate to the bigger picture, gmtom. You might have grown up in a household where you were insulated from the predations of the processed food industry. You might have had better habits instilled in you as a child. You might have had a positive body image at one point in your life, to serve as inspiration for your weight loss journey. Maybe none of those are true and you truly are one of the lucky (and hard working!) ones who escaped this situation just like the addicts who recover through willpower alone. Regardless, we cannot all rely on being gmtom.

My final paragraph is not focused on the individual but on the epidemic of obesity. We cannot solve this through brow beating about CICO just like Republicans aren't going to solve the drug addiction crisis through jailing everyone with an addiction. People are using food to fill a hole in their lives, just like drugs, and we have to do the hard work of figuring that root out. Otherwise, we are doomed to become ineffective and unhelpful, leaving people to suffer.

It really is the "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" or "just don't take any drugs, duh" of weight loss. Like, you can't just ignore all the social, systemic issues in our health and food industries, reduce it all to cals in vs cals out, and expect that to work. It's reductive and unproductive.

People aren't having trouble with math or willpower, they're having trouble with the fact that most (emphasis on "most") readily available, cheap food is bad for you. Most people in poverty grew up with processed, heavily advertised junk and have literal addictions to this shit.

Yknow, this is always an interesting topic for me. The mental image of a politician oftentimes takes in stances going all the way back to the beginning of their careers. Much like anyone else though, they can change and evolve. In this case, it seems that Walz changed his views after a mass shooting, which is a traumatic event and impetus for a lot of folks to change their views. Other notable cases are Obama's views on LGBT marriage rights and a lot of Biden's views. It's inevitable that politicians with long careers, especially those on the democratic side, will have to evolve. The public often then accuses them of hypocrisy. How do we effectively determine when change is authentic versus pandering? An evolving person versus a hypocrite?

Would be happy to help!

Nope! I don't have to post to recognize horrible sources in the same way that I don't have to write a song to know one hurts my ears to listen to.

Because Newsweek in particular deserves it? Post better sources.