Let me save that for later.

But have you ever seen them in the same movie together?

I'm fully ready to get torn apart for this. I get victim blaming is wrong. But sometimes you can make better choices based on available information, regardless of whether it's your fault if something happens.

If there's a street called Drag Race Avenue where every person that lives on it drag races up and down it all day and every week there's a news story of someone getting hit using the crossing on Drag Race Avenue, maybe you shouldn't use the crossing on that street. Sure, it won't be your fault if you get hit, but how much comfort will that be when you're injured or dead?

It's possible to make choices that are objectively morally/legally/ethically right that are still stupid choices. Unfortunately we don't live in a world where as long as you do the right thing, so will everyone else and nothing bad will ever happen to you.

Hazards are a part of life. In many if not all workplaces there are hazards. Due to this there are hazard controls, along with a widely accepted list of most effective to least effective ways to deal with a hazard. First is to get rid of it entirely (stop people drag racing on that street) but if that's not possible, the next 2 are replace the hazard then isolate the hazard. In other words, if something exists that you can't stop from existing, your best course of action is to stay away from it / out of its way if possible.

These controls aren't about victim blaming, they're about making hazards as safe as possible. It's not illegal to carry a box that's too heavy for you, but you still may be injured by doing so. There's a reason workplaces have 100s of policies that aren't illegal but they decided you can't do there. Because there are many things that exist that you can do that are entirely legal but could still harm you.

Emulators might not be illegal, but Nintendo is a hazard to them that can't be eliminated.

I guess it depends on whether you care more about being right, or more about being safe.

These people could make the choice to be safer if they wanted to. They could be more anonymous if they wanted to. They could stay out of Nintendo's way. But if being right that they're not doing anything wrong is more important so be it. Maybe they consider it worth being shut down in order to draw attention to the issue. That's up to them.

From what I can tell it coats the stomach lining and dilutes the substance, causing slower absorption.

Oh. I should've guessed.

That's why they raise it by 10%, not 5%.

Say sub is currently $100/year, they now have to pay $5, they get $5 less. If they raise by 5% to $105, they have to pay $5.25, they get 25c less than originally. But if they raise to $110, they have to pay $5.50, and suddenly they are getting $4.50 more than before, even though they are paying more taxes. And they can blame it on this so people don't hate them as much and accept it.

Combine the size with the fact that they are semi transparent and live in hair follicles and sebaceous glands, both of which are essentially under the skin, and that's why you don't generally see them.

My mum never owned a car, we walked, biked, bus'd or train'd every day of my life. Because I was used to it and don't have a lot of money, I don't own a car either. I don't know what exactly you want me to do to give them less money, but what I do know is me walking everywhere every day has influenced exactly 0 people to do the same, and it's affected global carbon emissions by such a small fraction it can barely be measured.

It's not relatively small, it's essentially non existent, and there's no way as an individual to force others to give up their conveniences, any more than an individual can have the government ban all fossil fuels.

How much profit do you possibly think Australia provides to BP and other companies? How much of Australia doing business with them contributes to their global emissions? Because the fact is the entirety of Australia could return to tribalism with no modern technology and it would barely move the needle on either global profits or global emissions. Even a country that has 5% global emissions wouldn't achieve much by going to 0. It's near meaningless.

I think you misread. I don't account for 1 in 26 million of emissions. I count for 1% divided by 26 million of emissions. 1 26 millionth of a percent.

This would be like if there was some kind of global election, and ALL Australian votes added together were worth 1.2% of the total vote.

That means my personal vote/emissions in this scenario would be 0.000000046%

And then there were 57 corporations whose interests were largely aligned that accounted for 80% that also got to vote.

Imagine a school/college/workplace had votes that everyone could participate in to make changes to it. But altogether, the student/employee votes could account for at most 20% of the vote, and teacher/management accounted for 80% of the vote.

Would you believe your vote has an affect in such an election?

(and this isn't even continuing the analogy to the point that there are like 200 classes/departments and yours accounts for like 1-4% assuming you're in one of the larger ones, and there are 26 million or more people in your department, meanwhile there are 57 teachers/managers that mostly agree with each other in protecting what they want/their interests)

Saudi Aramco accounted for more than 4 percent of global emissions, Gazprom clocked over 3 percent and Coal India accounted for roughly 3 percent.

Total global emissions in 2020, including land-use change, were approximately 40 Gt. This means that Australian emissions are approximately 1.2% of global emissions

There are 26 million people in Australia. That 1.2% is obviously all Australian emissions, but let's exaggerate and say that's purely from individuals. That the footprint of all Australian citizens combined was 1.2% of global emissions.

If literally all Australians then brought their personal carbon footprint to 0, it would be a reduction of less than 1/3rd of Saudi Aramco's emissions alone.

From 2016 to 2022, 80 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions were produced by just 57 companies.

But I'm supposed to believe that I, with my ~ 1/26 million of a percent footprint, have an affect. You'll have to try a lot harder to convince me of that.

Ubuntu is out of date compared to Ubuntu?

That's exactly it, it depends on the person more than the game. No game would be expected to be infinitely replayable, but there absolutely are people that will infinitely play a single game.

Yes, and none of those ~30yo use it unironically, if at all. It's teen slang regardless of the generation of teens it was most popular with. And they're clearly trying to use it to connect with youth, regardless of how many current teens use it.

Game mechanics should not be patentable, change my mind.

That sounds like very little evidence to me. Literally doesn't even have a citation.

That is the only thing I can think of when I hear the word succulent.

But then they think they heard the only important part already and miss the context which equally matters.

I still don't know how half the games at timezone can be allowed for kids.

Well what about when we get powdered mixes and mix them into water

I love it, but I'm probably not a typical racing game fan and haven't played that many others. Burnout paradise is my other favourite.