You can’t eat gold, and you can only trade gold for food if that person can trade the gold for something else. I’m not going to say there’s no chance of gold being valuable in a societal collapse scenario, but I’d rather wager with resources than a pretty, shiny metal. I don’t see how that’s a position that can’t be understood. Gold works as an intermediary exchange, but direct barter can always be counted on.

The comment I was replying to mentioned being against censorship and hoping the game gets put back up on a Steam. While they didn’t say anything about Steam being forced to do anything, I was just following that train of thought to any pressure being put on Steam to put it back on. They have no reason to reverse the decision.

Steam is a publisher that is free to decide what is or is not allowed on their platform. Everyone is free to choose not to use Steam, just as everyone is free to choose not to play Horses, and platforms are free to not host it. Why should Steam be forced to host it if they have decided not to?

This looks like something right out of JoJo’s

I want to ask genuinely, how is the bookmark different than a tab with tab grouping in this instance? I have the bookmarks bar always visible, and have folders organized on the main bar (rather than the drop down extended bar). Wouldn’t tab grouping do the same thing, just slightly higher?

They mean the game is streamed from a server to the player, rather than running on the player’s hardware. This might not be feasible for every game studio to do, but would actually open up the game for more players to be able to play (since local hardware requirements would be lower).

I think this is a terrible idea for other reasons, but accessibility and anti-cheat aspects of it are not some of those reasons.

During that time period it wasn’t so much being an atheist that made someone an edge lord, but in how they went about communicating that to others.

They don’t mention anything replacing the black fuel. Could just be (likely) the future is unpowered altogether.

That is the correct response

I had a teacher in high school do the same thing. He’d also note the sides of the road on the way to school so he could find fresh roadkill on the way home.

Made some great venison jerky.

I switched to Antennapod a couple of months ago and it has been amazing. It offers per-podcast audio boosting, great for those quiet podcasters that expect their listeners to use headphones in a sensory deprivation tank as they whisper from the room across the building from their microphone.

“I deal with enough tinkering on computers at work, when I get home I just want it to work” Proceeds to spend hours getting mod packs installed on games they play for a week, month tops

Damnit, you’re right!

But for real, I think you misunderstand the point of documentation. Even if something were truly, literally flawless, having documentation would still be a net gain. It isn’t only to fix something when it goes wrong, but explains how things are working. If the only way for something to be literally flawless in your world view is for it to be so self explanatory that an idiot seeing it for the first time still understands it perfectly, nothing in computing can be flawless in that way.

The pedantry on this point is so unhelpful as to be actively harmful to the rest of the discussion.

They didn’t say it required documentation, they said it had plenty of documentation should you need it.

Swimming for sure

A user “Luffy” created a post that was specifically complaining about thorn guy. OP isn’t complaining about mods not acting on thorn guy, they are complaining about mods not acting on the guy that made a post complaining about thorn guy.

Screenshot could be a lot better, I agree, but it’s all there

Edit: I also don’t think that’s really an attack post, but also don’t think it really fits here. Your reply just makes it seem like some people may think OP is railing against thorn guy

Do you care about the person that gave the gift? Do you trust and believe that they love you and got the gift in good faith, trying to do well even if it was flawed? Then express gratitude for the intention, even if you don’t want the gift. “Sorry, I’m happy with the one I have and don’t want to replace it.”

Do you care about the person you want to give a gift to? Do you trust and believe that they love you and them disliking a gift isn’t an indicator that they dislike you? Then humbly accept that your gift wasn’t the right one, and work together with them to find something they would prefer instead.

It isn’t difficult if you just talk with each other. Sometimes people pick bad gifts. Sometimes people are sentimentally attached to items. Sometimes people are very practical and have a “if it isn’t broken, it doesn’t need to be replaced/fixed” mentality that supercedes other considerations. Me, I have the opposite extreme. Even if a gift I receive is nothing something I have any intention of using, I feel obligated to find a space and use for it as a show of appreciation to the person that gifted it to me, because I wasnt owed the gift in the first place and I have gratitude they were thinking of me. That can be (is) unhealthy in an entirely different way.

But even if you think a gift is dumb and wrong and it’s an insult that they even gave it to you, if you love that person you swallow that pride and let them know you appreciate what they were trying to do but that they got it wrong this time. This can be done gently instead of coldly. And I am not saying OP had done it coldly, maybe the gift giving partner has insecurities they need to deal with. I don’t know, I wasn’t there. Understanding why the gift giving partner would be upset that their gift was snubbed only takes a hint of empathy to understand, though. On the other hand, it’s also easy to understand why the receiver would be confused why the gift was chosen in the first place, with the information provided. Both are missreading each other on different points.

We literally established a rule early in our marriage. I’m not allowed to gift nerdy t shirts. They don’t like them. I love them. I thought they would like them but they do not. So they asked me to stop. This feels the same.

This point stood out to me. I’m assuming that you verbally established a “no nerdy t-shirts” rule, but did not verbally establish the “no new items” rule. If it was only implied, or you felt it was obvious to not buy you new gifts, but did not explicitly establish that rule like you did for the t-shirts, then it is not the same. Neither of you are bad or wrong for the moscommunication, but this is a great opportunity to have an open and frank discussion about gift expectations for each other.

I was having something sent in an envelope (from Etsy) to a friend’s house, but put my name on the addressee line. I was traveling to visit them and wanted the item to meet me there. The local USPS branch denied delivery because they had no record of my name residing there, and returned the item to sender.