Isn’t The Finals struggling to keep its players?

Interest rates are higher so companies have a higher pressure to turn big profits instead of other metrics of success.

Bitcoin’s only legitimate use cases are a worse, slower and more expensive eletronic money transfer. In other words, there aren’t any.

I was referring to the Prince of Wales. It suffered from a lot of technical problems and lack of escorts, but apparently they turned it around. Supposedly.

Isn’t their only carrier unable to actually engage in any operations due to lack of escorts and/or crew?

I only care about achievements in games I enjoy. Also while I agree it’s useful telemetry, let’s not kid ourselves: game companies track a lot more than what achievements could ever do by themselves.

If it works I expect it to be popular. A lot of people don’t actually want to engage with videogames and would rather zombie through the experience

No matter what I try, I never even get to the end of the campaign in PoE, or PoE2 for that matter. I just get bored.

3 had too much of bloodborne into it unfortunately.

What made the Japanese surrender was the Soviet Union declaring war. They held out hope until the very end that the soviets would mediate a peace, even after the nukes.

High-ranking General: “Show me how to defeat my enemies”

Artificial “Inteligence”: Just nuke them lmao

Nope, it’s either right click or the goddamn scroll that fails.

It’s incredibly interesting how, according to western media, all the ukrainian attacks on russian infrastructure never cause any deaths but russian attacks always cause deaths every time.

COBOL itself isn’t really that bad. It’s the lack of modern toolling you’d expect that will make you tear your hair apart. And also JCL. Fuck JCL.

The problem is that the current definition makes no sense and is, frankly, bad.

400 people, for a huge scientific community like astronomy, is bad. Heck even if they were literally all the astronomers in the world, the fact that it was proposed and voted on basically the same day should be noteworthy at the very least.

And no one here is angry. I was just pointing out that name calling for no reason doesn’t really add to the discussion, even a low stakes one like this.

That’s not what I said? You can have both. You are the one closing yourself to art with subtext.

People say a lot more than what their words mean all the time. Having that in art is just part of being made by people.

It’s because the definition includes things that aren’t really about the object itself and more about where it is. And also how inconsistent it is, as Mercury isn’t in hydrostatic equilibrium and yet is explicitly included as a planet by the IAU. Nevermind the fact that the new definition was speed voted and approved by less than 400 astronomers in a convention where 2500+ people attended, let alone not even being discussed with the larger scientific community.

But hey, if you’d rather dismiss my points because of an url, you do you. Not like this changes our everyday live anyway.

It’s about keeping the solar system small and simple. There would be tens of planets, in the old definition.

Except when you actually read about the change in Pluto’s status and how unscientific it actually is.