SuddenDownpour

Are you daft? "Well where is the UN on Xinjiang protecting the Uyghurs if it's about protecting human rights?" Not all organizations have the means to achieve their goals. Think for two seconds before posting shit.

Sure, but in the meantime, Israel would have the capacity to do absolutely anything they want, which would permanently cripple Gazans. If you want proof, look at the settlers in the West Bank, who have been eating Palestinian territory uninterrupted because the Palestinian Authority plays nice with them, even though they're criminals.

Ah, yes, good to see Republicans are focusing on the most pressing issues their voters face.

There's "profit-driven" and "seeking exclusively the profits of the next quarter". While capitalism has a lot of downsides in the long run, the vast majority of bullshit people get outraged about is due to publicly traded companies being organized in such a way that their CEOs and shareholders sacrifice all sustainability and instead try to loot your kitchen.

Whatever Steam policies you think are bullshit right now (and I can name a couple more, too), they're not too much in comparison to what they'd be under more typical management.

If there's one thing worse than getting ruled by Hamas, that's Hamas unconditionally surrendering to Israel. What do you think would happen to Gaza's borders if Netanyahu could do whatever the hell he wanted without insurgences nor opposition?

All my support to Gazans for them to regain their own self-determination and democracy, but this might be the worst possible moment for Hamas to disappear from existence.

It's incredible, because by the looks of it, Macron's party seems to be the one that's reacting the worst to Macron's own move, the fascists haven't been caught on the wrong foot, and the real surprise is the leftist coalition that has been pacted in record time after they were at each other's throats during the European elections, so Macron might actually be the most fatal victim of his own strategy if he doesn't even make it to the second round.

Transphobic legislation usually doesn't make the distinction, because, you see, it's transphobic legislation.

Adderall is a drug that:

• If your brain typically produces very reduced amounts of dopamine (as it's usually the case with people with ADHD), it helps your brain achieve more standard levels of dopamine. This usually means that you go from a need for constantly get new, interesting stimuli (so that your brain generates dopamine until it reaches standard levels), to actually become capable of focusing on what you want to do, which usually means in not getting fired and being capable of putting your life in order.

• If your brain typically produces standard amounts of dopamine (as it's usually the case for neurotypical people), it acts as an stimulant, gets you high and is potentially addictive.

There are countries that have extremely tight regulations on Adderall, to the point of enforcing how much it should be produced based on old data from doctors' prescriptions who may or may not be predisposed against believing their patients, for the sake of protecting morons who want to irresponsibly get high, even if it provokes shortages that may potentially destroy the lives of people who do need the drug in order to function without issues.

Do you see the problem with priorities here? If you have to choose between protecting people consistently choosing to behave irresponsible until they need treatment, and people who, beyond their own capacity to choose one way or the other, do need treatment now in order to have a good life, choosing to restrict its production and distribution provokes widespread healthcare issues (with ramifications at the economical, social, and most importantly, human level) in order to prevent another that may or may not actually take place. It's completely moronic.

Let's cross fingers so that the two sides of the French left compromise on taking the good side on Ukraine, and the good side on Gaza, and not the other way around 🤞

While you should vote for the best possible option, I feel like these kinds of posts are constantly shifting responsibility away from Democrats for their own short-comings.

A couple of weeks ago I voted in the European Parliament elections for the option that had, in my view, the best possible agenda: socially progressive, ecologist, economically left-leaning, decent foreign policy and coherent voting records. But the campaign they ran was absolutely terrible, starting by the candidate. Even though she is admittedly an accomplished woman who has had a very solid career, she doesn't know about the concept of charisma. She wasn't selected because she was the person who would perform the best in debates or in speeches (and she definitely wasn't), but rather, because she was an option that would provoke little conflict among the different factions of the coalition. That was the sign that the internal dynamics of the coalition had degenerated and were acting out of their own inertia, rather than seeking the best possible outcome.

Expectedly, we got about half the seats we were aiming for.

The very next day, the leader of the coalition resigned from that position. Even though she's a great minister (making policy), she's proven she isn't good at keeping the aparatus under control in order to achieve good results (doing politics). It's a painful process, but a necessary one where mistakes and short-comings must be admitted in order to grow into something more virtuous.

Having read US liberals for years, I grow more and more convinced that they're instinctively hostile to constructive criticism of their party's aparatus. And, when your country's voters declare themselves to agree far more with your party's policies than those of their direct opponent, and yet they can't bury their opponent into irrelevance, you have to admit that your party is doing electoralism wrong, and must question why.

How is that wholesome 💀 Put the doggo's photos NEXT to your child's photos.

However, even when the project had been given the go ahead, Klindžić said the team was "set up to fail from the start", due to not having been allowed a pre-production period. "Whenever we raised concerns about this and expressed we needed more writers if the deadlines were to be met, we were accused of not wanting to do our jobs," Klindžić said.

"Pretty much from the moment the writing team's pitch was approved in August of 2022, the other teams started production," Tuulik added. "We didn't even really know what the story or the characters were gonna be, when art teams were already making first character and environment concepts. I'm sure you can see how this is a big problem, when you're making a narrative-led game.

"Essentially, the writing team had to work double-time from day one to supply other disciplines with work, whilst trying to write the first dialogues and sketch out the rest of the game at the same time. The writing team consisted of myself and Dora at the time." Another developer added: "I don't know if Dora and Argo ever felt in control."

Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and call the headline bullshit. It should also be noted that Disco Elysium had 8 writers, on top of Kurvitz, and Kurvitz himself still argued that he went through crunch. Current ZA/UM's management is a disaster and nothing good is going to come from it unless a brick falls upon their heads, and they magically learn that making good games requires a lot of work, or if you're a capitalist, a lot of investment.