This would be a good thing, though I think it’s trickier than it appears:

• How arbitrary are “best before” and “expires on” labels and how do they differ from food to food?
• How do the labels themselves differ from each other and how to do they differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction?
• Could acknowledging that “expired” food is still good cause expiry dates to just be extended? How far could they be extended before food actually is dangerous past the label?
• How does liability work when someone gets sick from “expired” food? Does it change when it’s part of a structured donation system?

Lots of comments already telling you to stay home so I don’t think I need to. What I will say is if you don’t want to contribute to the growing number of variants, you’ll stay home. Variants largely arise from mutations in the virus during replication. Humans are virus-replication machines. If you’re infected you could be carrying a new variant right now and the only way to stop it is to let it die inside you. Your body’s immune system will already be in full swing and be in the best position to deal with it as opposed to an uninfected person.

Don’t contribute to the endemicity of COVID.

I see what you’re saying, but Steam Machines came out in 2015 and was more a push for native Linux support. IMO, Proton was the paradigm shift where native support immediately started mattering less and that came out in 2018

This is good for Linux users. Valve has been fantastic for supporting games on Linux since the Steam Deck and Blizz has never had proper Linux support. Now Linux users can ditch Lutris, Bottles, or WINE if they want to just simplify and use Steam, which does have a native Linux build.

From my understanding, the game is about killing each other lol

Yea, this will always be the problem when trying to create a story around this format of gameplay. You definitely have to ignore the fact that lore enemies can team up because the comp needs it.

The optimistic tone comes across in the character writing, world design, and music. Little in the game is dour or depressing. Instead the focus is on the details that make the locations or characters unique and interesting. There’s a lot of language and cultural representation.

Also, barring the secondary deathmatch game made, OW is technically about doing non-kill objectives, it just so happens that killing your opponents is the best way to complete the objectives.

It’s funny because on the scoreboard, traditional “Kills” are labelled “Eliminations”, but they still keep tradition for multikills i.e. the announcer will say double kill and not something double elim

The OW1 client is gone, but Blizz migrated most things to OW2. The exceptions were the team size (changed from 6v6 to 5v5) and 1 match type (1 type dropped with 2 new types added). Collectibles and anything that could be purchased was also migrated from 1 to 2.

The Proton free tier is pretty limited compared to Gmail, in particular for me, you’re only allowed 1 label. The basic paid tier opens up a lot more. They definitely want you to upgrade to the paid tier.

Drawing Sonic like this is extremely inappropriate…

Draw the mono-eye or DON’T DRAW HIM AT ALL.

Probably for the same reasons hospitals have medical facilities all centralized in them. The equipment and services aren’t necessary all the time, but when they are it’s more useful to have them all in one place. That probably doesn’t stop other ships from having their own medical facilities for more day to day use.

I kind of wish this was the only scene Vader was in; it would have been such a good surprise. If I’m remembering correctly, He wasn’t all that impactful to the plot before this anyway.

Also, having the pressure come only from Tarkin I think is a cleaner and stronger way of pushing Krennic and reinforcing their conflict.

I’m not agreeing with the above, but it’s nuanced. Content curation is a sliding scale that can create an echo chamber if one becomes too insular. On the internet especially where discourse can be inflammatory, avoiding some topics can shut you off from entire ideas that may otherwise be benign.

IMO create the experience you want, but build resilience and test your limits often. It’s healthier for yourself and the internet as a community.

Do you have any rationale behind keeping in touch with those people in spite of their treatment of you? What do you believe about their future behaviour?

I would hope in the future we get a more fleshed out version of multireddits. I think it would be a decent solution since I don’t think duplication of communities is a phenomenon that will ever go away.

Joined on one instance, it went away, had to create a new account on this instance.

That’s a really annoying issue. Not being able to trust an instance to keep your account alive plants the seeds for a centralization problem in the future.

100%

Agreed, though I think it’s less “we don’t want you here” and more “you’re on your own”. I liken it to Linux in that sense where new users are expected to try harder to learn the ins and outs. The difference is with Linux what you learn can be applied in so many more places in your Linux experience. With Lemmy, once you grasp the technical depth of it there’s not much you can do with it except explain it to another person.

I agree, though I probably wouldn’t call it marketing or advertising. Maybe just a better and more accessible introduction and onboarding experience.

Nobody is “inserting” or “shoe-horning” anyone anywhere they don’t belong. My argument has always been that systems of power have artificially, non-meritocratically, prevented competent and able people from gaining positions of power or influence because of their membership to a particular group. They’re just not given a fair shot.

Now depending on how used to the traditional landscape of power some people are, a legitimately fair shot may appear like some sinister replacement theory-like plot, but that’s not justice and you can’t please everyone anyway. There’s only so much identity a group can strategically yield before they’ve lost the issues they originally wanted solved.

America voted for Obama in part because he was an actual option. When people are made aware there are options for better representation, they’ll take them.

I agree that technically it’s not necessary; very few things are. But that begs the question, why settle for a proxy? There are many who are willing and able to represent in an equally competent way, but with the advantage of being closer to the issues. There’s nothing stopping those individuals from starting the same conversations and advocating for speaking up and empathy in the same way, they are just less likely to need a figurative, and sometimes literal, translator.

You’ve avoided saying explicitly whether aiming for more than what’s “necessary” would be detrimental to overall efforts for progressive change, but the obvious implication of the argument is “yes”. The whole “perfect is the enemy of good” thing. Something like “leverage the current not-so-representative individuals in power to solve the issues because getting new, more representative people in would be” somewhere between “wasteful” and “token”, depending on who’s talking. I believe this is the case not because it’s what works, but because we’ve landed here after aiming for better. The middle outcome will always be the winning one. Aim for the middle and the winning outcome will just be worse.

Additionally, the reason I specifically mention visible representation is because of how much visibility plays a part in inspiring and motivating action from the people that identify with that visible person. The backgrounds and history of these people are known and it’s a significant thing to see the background you share with them not only acknowledged, but vindicated as something that didn’t hold them back in finding success.

I agree, the populace needs to be taken care of and empowered. However, those supports are beholden to the systems set and maintained by those with power i.e. the “high status” positions I refer to. There’s no lifting up a populace with a system that’s designed to keep them down. You need a change in the people with power to create change in the systems in a way that can actually help people. That includes getting people into power that are not just sympathetic to a variety of groups, but who are part of those groups so they can bring their lived experience and visible representation to the places where meaningful decisions are made.