Sorry yeah, that was definitely rude, having a bad morning, figured like you replied to a response to them and just didn’t read the comment… so common these days unfortunately.

Larger ships have to be towed by tugs.

Yes that was addressed in the comment.

Why not? Lots of games have that already.

What tension? Fans being stupid?

Nintendo is litigious yea, but there’s hundreds of emulators out there that haven’t been sued, they only sue people who do blatantly illegal stuff they can sue them for. What has palworld done that’s illegal?

Emulators are legal, so they leave the legal ones, they go after the ones perpetuating the illegal parks, like Yuzu.

Why not, they are one store front with prolific shovelware still.

The federal government, some cities, and most electric providers offer incentives to purchase and install modern HVAC units

Which is because there’s a market to sell them, make it mandatory and there is no reason to have sales or grants, it’s a guaranteed sell. Which is also politics….

It’s an extra 3-5k on the sticker price, that’s unaffordable for a large swath of people, especially when the house is only 60k anyways.

Blame building codes and politics. Including an AC in every build could inflate the costs making it unaffordable too.

Why doesn’t Lemmy find something else than copying what Reddit did?

Huh they’ve been in various brands and stores in Canada for atleast a few years. Surprised it didn’t start down there and make its way up here.

I agree, those are those play for the gameplay games, I don’t want to sit in a menu for 20 hours reading lore and still don’t know that I’m missing the necklace that explains why the jesters head was cut off or some stupid shit.

These games are made for some passionate fan to explain the lore in a way for others to grasp and that’s not always a bad thing. Still friggen stupid though.

The story/lore is from reading all the item descriptions and talking to everyone, gotta find it yourself unlike most games.

They didn’t remove chrome because it glares.

And is it a problem? How many accidents are caused by glares? And maybe wear sunglasses if it’s sunny out…… take a little personal accountability when driving something dangerous if a fraction of a second glare might affect your ability to control a vehicle. Or move your head? Is it immobile? I usually shift my whole body if I’m parked and it’s consistent for a few seconds.

A waxed car does the same… a window does the same… that’s literally not a reason.

Isn’t that the point of him saying about “the consumptive nature”? They couldn’t do what they wanted to, because they were doing a live service (that a large portion of people do want) so concessions had to be made.

I don’t think they are saying they tried doing it, it’s just the two ideas couldn’t coexist.

Please read the entire thing. You would see how it was on topic if you did, that’s how I know you haven’t.

Sometime in the early 2000’s Uri Gneezy and Aldo Rustichini conducted a very intriguing field study in an elementary school in Israel [1]. The participants were prepuberty140 children, 75 boys and 65 girls, all in the fourth grade between 9–10 years of age. The researchers studied the performance of the children in a race alone over a short distance of 40 meters (~131 feet) with the teacher measuring their speed. Girls and boys ran on average at the same speed. Then the majority of the children ran a second time with the teacher matching the children in pairs, starting with the two fastest children in the race going down the list independent of gender. Each pair ran on the same track, with the two children running alongside this time. Now, the boys improved while the girls ran slower. In eight mixed-pair races of 11 observations (73%) in which boys were slower than the girls initially, they beat the competition in the head-on second stage. In the remaining 18 mixed-pair races, where the girls had a worse time in the first round, only three girls won the competition (17%). To combat experimental threats, the researchers wisely kept a separate group of children as controls who ran alone in round two as well. This group, yet again showed no gender differences in speed and thus dispelled alternative explanations such as girls getting tired faster than boys. Based on the results, Gneezy and Rustichini concluded “Overall, we find support for the claim that competition increases the performance of males relative to females…This indicates that some strong, robust, and general factors are involved.” They then raised further: “The puzzle that remains concerns the more subtle effects of competition in homogeneous and heterogeneous groups.” (p. 380).

Did you read it all? Or just skip to the conclusion?

The introduction had great links with their why they are doing this study.

In only one group would the women win a significant portion of the events? You basically created an Olympics with a bottom 25% female category, and 3 male categories. The women can already compete with the men if they want to, but they want medals too, not just to be there…. The best women would be overshadowed by the best men, you would only be showing off the worst of the top female athletes.

Expanding? When you need a d list male to compete with a b list female? Come on.

There is a thousand, but I find this Pretty interesting myself

Back to the discussion. It would basically be this if we took the 10% of each and put it into 4 categories.

Group A 85%men 15% women

Group B 70%men 30% women

Group C 55%men 45%women

Group D 5%men 95%women

It just doesn’t work. You would be hand picking less qualified men to compete with the women just to fill it up.

Pardon my ignorance, what would you call someone preop and refering to them in the past tense? Especially when competing?

If someone was married, it wouldn’t be wrong to refer to them at that time as straight or call it during their “straight phase” and we are simplifying it. Especially if you don’t know their full story.

Sounds like you’re just looking for a fight in the comments, imma bounce.