Why not? (Alternately you can use the sub-term ‘Scaly’.)

Sale History:

2023: £385,000

1997: £185,000

Good luck with the new price, I guess? Perfect for someone who’s always dreamed of living in a parking lot.

She wasn’t “my” candidate, any more than Donald Trump was “your” candidate. I voted against Donald Trump. Folks who voted third party didn’t do that. They may not have voted for him, but they didn’t vote against him.

This, really, is what gets me about billionaires. Literally any of them could have just faded into obscurity years ago, lived a life of abject luxury and never had a single worry. Or, they could have spent like 10% of their wealth on improving things for society as a whole, and everyone would have loved them for it. But no - they all had to just focus on hoarding more and more and making things worse and worse for everyone else. It’s fucking baffling to me.

Ah, yes. Because that’s the most objectionable part of that opinion, not ‘We should jail people for their voting behavior’. Can you get any more authoritarian?

Edit: But sure, if that’s where we’re going, I’ll bite:

It was a two party race. There were no other viable candidates. You didn’t vote against Trump in any meaningful way; you did nothing to prevent our current situation, and that’s a pretty wild stance to be defending.

I spent a lot of years playing EQ1, and I don’t think any game will ever really capture that magic again, but this sure looks like it’s a great attempt at doing so.

What! I love this conceptually.

Well, I suppose you’re welcome to your opinion, even if it’s an absolutely horrid one.

Send them back to NK. Send them the first leg of the trip on a bus driven by a single unarmed soldier. If the North Koreans somehow manage to overpower the driver and commandeer the bus, and drive it to wherever they please… “Well, shucks, guys, we did what we could.”

The issue here is that I, as a gamer, want to know if developers espouse opinions that I strongly disagree with, because I don’t want to give them my money. So if a developer was (for example) in the Epstein Files, I would want to know that before buying their game. Reviews are an effective way to communicate that information, and I’d be rather upset to see them go.

You can’t reasonably allow reviews outlining some developer behavior and disallow others - that’s straight up censorship. As much as I disagree with the 'I will downvote games by someone who celebrated Charlie Kirk’s death" stance, I think it’s their right to take that stance. I’m not really sure how you reconcile those two things without just banning them both.

What Steam could do is have a separate review category (from ‘normal’ ones and ‘off-topic’ ones) to categorize character profiles of the developers, and let people opt in or opt out of having those included in the aggregate score. Alternately, they could categorize reviews by the reason (e.g. “Performance / crashes”, “Unfun”, “Too hard”, “Too Woke”, “Developer is a horrible person”), and let people choose which categories they care about.

You like following rules, don’t you?

Oh, interesting - it seems you are right; I stand corrected.

Euthanasia is not something that’s allowed on a whim. It typically requires psychological evaluation, a prognosis that doesn’t allow for recovery or improvement, and a lengthy process to get approval. You can’t just walk into a doctor’s office, tell them you’re in pain and want to die, and have them hook you up to an IV.

Why do you think the father’s desire to keep her alive should trump her own bodily autonomy and right to choose for herself?

Or vehicular assault, which is its own category?

One could note that, since this man was arrested and so far none of the folks named in the Epstein files have been, they consider speaking for a few seconds past the allotted time to be a worse crime than sexually abusing children for decades.

It’s wrecked.

I see what you’re saying, but the obvious distinction here is that if someone is actively searching e.g. Google for a product, they don’t mind being shown products (and by extension being advertised to) - they’re actively seeking it out. What everyone has a problem with is being shown advertisements for products when they aren’t seeking them out and in fact actively want to avoid them.

I don’t even see how that’d be possible. Prices consumers paid were higher, but it wasn’t (in most cases) directly paying the tariffs - it’s just that the importer’s costs were higher because of the imports, so they raised their prices, too. Figuring out exactly what the reimbursement should be to each individual consumer would be functionally impossible even if they did mandate it.

Those reimbursements go to the importers, whereas the cost burden was on consumers, so really this has been a (successful) avenue for siphoning money from the poors to the rich.

I don’t know, I think it sounds lovely. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)