I was watching but I wasn't home; I usually only show up here if I'm watching alone at home.
Maybe it's because I'm a Portuguese fan but I was on edge the whole time! I wish it had been more boring for me 😂 I was shouting Diogo Costa's name at the end
And so they vote republican?
Either way, not much else is gonna matter when the planet is too hot to live on, and entire Islands full of people go underwater, and no other country is willing to take in the refugees.
Sorry if I sound so evangelical about this shit, but that's because I'm fucking surrounded by these "80% who total care" people, and I see how they live their lives and the decisions they make. It's fucking lip service and pushing of the responsibly on to other people while hoping you don't have to make any changes in your life. Or, at best, it's complete fucking ignorance.
So 80% want stronger climate action? But not enough to vote for green parties, and even not enough to not vote for anti-climate action parties?
Using the US as example and assuming the Dem/Rep split is about 50/50: if all Dem voters want "stronger climate action", then that means 30% of Rep voters are voting for anti-climate policy while claiming to want stronger climate action.
Sounds to me like those 80% don't really know how bad the issue is or how much needs to be done. Which means they are lying to themselves or to others, and this number is actually meaningless. That's the point the user above you is making, and it seems you agree.
Yes.
Do Democrats all agree 100% with each other? Do Republicans? They still manage to get together to vote for those parties. How many single issue voters are out there?
But I'm expected to believe 80% want significant climate action or have any clue what that would really entail, but can't get together and vote for a green party? Perhaps if by "stronger climate action" they mean more electrical cars and recycling bins, or maybe these 80% even include people who want more green coal, but I'm sure we both know that doesn't mean really mean anything.
You can’t assume from people voting for one of the only two parties that can win an election
The survey says 80%... that is enough to get any party to win. Hell, if you dare to dream high enough, that number is high enough to completely set the current government to the side, deny their legitimacy, and make a new governmental system - like one which is not a "first-past-the-post system".
The argument of "only two parties that can win" is nonsensical in this context, no offense.
Either way, the US is not the only country in the world, and it's not the only example the other user gave. Even if we ignore the US, how do you justify this in other countries that don't have a first-past-the-post system? Like I said in another comment:
Survey’s also show that most people want carbon taxes, but look what happens when the price of gas goes up.
People don't like that, and it affects how they vote.
For example if we do something relatively small like ending beef subsidies here in the US, then ground beef will double or triple in price, and people will naturally consume much less.
And you think people will be okay with that and just let it happen? A politician does that and not only are they not elected again, they might have protests and even riots on their hands. You can't post c/vegan without non vegans showing up and being disruptive. Which begs the question: why would politicians ever do it when they know this?
You can't have systemic change if people aren't willing to change their lives in the first place. People often say they want this or that, but don't actually stop to think what that requires. Survey's also show that most people want carbon taxes, but look what happens when the price of gas goes up. What do people think carbon taxes will do? Well, the answer is they don't really think about it; they just think "tax for company to help climate", and that's where it stops.
If you want systemic change, then you also need to acknowledge and raise awareness to the need to take accountability and change our own lifestyles, otherwise that systemic change will never work. Going around saying we could all "change our lifestyles and it wouldn't matter" and that "what we need is systemic change" in response to people talking about taking personal accountability, does, ironically, very little to bring about that needed systemic change; or at least that's my perspective.
Linux and Android handles .webp just fine tho
I can't speak for all distros and DEs, and I also don't do many image related things, but I'm using Linux Mint Cinnamon and the default desktop background manager doesn't support .webp. Sometimes I see a cool image that I want to use and I have to convert it; other times, when I notice it's .webp, I just give up on that image.
Mint's default wallpaper manager doesn't, and Discord doesn't let me pick a .webp as an avatar. Those seem like 2 pretty big ones that don't work.
I've also run into other less common examples over time, but those are more random spread out things and I don't remember what they are.
I'm not usually one to complain about refs or (un)called fouls, but this game is ridiculous.
Ronaldo gets his shirt obviously yanked and held for several second in penalty area? Yellow for Ronaldo, because he complained. No VAR.
Holding in the middle of the field against Georgia? Yellow for Portugal.
Light foot touch against Georgia in Portugal's penalty box? VAR; pen for Georgia.
At the end of the day it's a just game and it's meant to be fun, but this just takes away all the fun from the game.
Yes, you are a liar. You said "ruined" but still have not provided an example of something they have ruined. And after being called out on it, you proceed to use personal insults. Not only are you a liar, you are also incredibly immature.
Well, he does imply he has a guilty conscience; he's just also saying he can live with it.
I think they mean if you're a woman (trans or cis), it can be terrifying to meet with people. At least that's how I interpreted it.
Edit: Perhaps they are also talking about non-binary people, which is why they chose the words "not male presenting".
The fact that most comments here seem to be talking about stone henge says otherwise. If not for what happened to stone henge recently, people might not have paid this much attention to this.
It's an older game, but I would say Dragon Age: Origins (the DLCs/complete edition make it even better).
There are fewer companions and most of them are human IIRC, but overall I think they are better fleshed out and more interesting. I liked them all more than most BG3 companions, perhaps in part because they aren't all nymphomaniac bisexuals who try to jump in your pants as soon as you look them in the eye and say "hello".
The story is perhaps a bit more grounded than in BG3, but I overall liked it more and though the overall world and cast of characters were more interesting. You even get a unique starting area depending on your race/class! And even though BG3 is perhaps larger in terms of actual map area, but in DA:O you explore so much more of the world and go through so many different areas with different societies/kingdoms that it ends up feeling bigger and richer in lore, IMO.
Other than that, I would maybe also add Planescape: Torment(*), Fallout: New Vegas, Disco Elysium.
Yes, I am aware I am a basic bitch.
(*) Disclaimer for Planescape: Torment; the last third or so of the game was made by a different team, and you can definitely tell, but it's worth getting through to the ending.
EDIT:
I forgot to mention this, but it might be important to some people: regarding combat, in DA:O it's just ok, in P:T and FNV it's just there to get you through the story, and Disco Elysium doesn't even really have combat. BG3 has by far the best combat, so if that's something that is important to you, then it's worth to keep that in mind.
🤦♂️ Off course, after all that this is how we score.
Watching Portugal play is always so frustrating. It doesn't matter how good you are if you can't score; all the other teams need is one good chance and we are immediately in hot water.
Damn, that sucks. One of the Turkish players fell on his face though, which was funny.
I was just thinking to myself "why would you shoot from there with so many teammates around", and then it just went in.
You know, trying to mock me isn't gonna convince me of anything. Especially since I never said I disagreed with you. I said it has the same problem that you claim my strategy has: it needs numbers.
Let me ask you, have you burned any SUVs lately? Specifically, have you burned "every suv in 300 miles"? Have you disrupted the supply chain? If not, is it because you are waiting until you have enough numbers? Because, again, once you have enough numbers, I think it's better to take the peaceful route. Probably easier to recruit people for it, too.
And btw, making "The Right Purchases" is often about not making purchases; I find the people who disagree with that and talk about "moralizing your fellow shoppers" are often just trying to have their cake and eat it too.