Has anything reputable reported on this? Everything I’ve read has said motive is under investigation, but it’d seem a bit clearer if this is actually true and not just facebook being facebook.

I completely forgot the 12-inch one existed.

Okay, the old ones that apparently have both do have the Thunderbolt symbol on the ones that are, though, so what’s the problem?

Why would you need them on a MacBook? They’re always* Thunderbolt.

Edit: Better explained by GamingChairModel below. I entirely forgot one series of MacBook, and also forgot when the older ones did have the Thunderbolt symbol on them.

Tried three or so before settling on Arctic. It does a the best job I’ve found of making the most of different iPad orientations and screen splits, and that’s the where I use Lemmy the most.

Sort of the thing that makes me think this one still has a ghost of a chance, but then I’ve liked the games The Chinese Room has made before mostly for their writing and music. I’ll probably be disappointed, but them at the helm doesn’t kill it for me like it probably does for people who wanted more of the original.

Is there a preferred metric to measure this by? I didn’t play the first one, but Wikipedia says “polarizing but ultimately positive,” and there’s an 80/100 metacritic score, for whatever that’s worth.

Your word picture is just so funny that I want to root for the game’s success just to be the person that quotes this comment and @s you, even if I tend to agree with your assessment.

And maybe I’m using it wrong, but it just…doesn’t work. I use spotlight search on my MacBook to find programs and things and it just finds them. It’s fast enough to be faster than me opening things off the dock.

I try to use the search on my wife’s Win11 computer and half the time it sends me to a website for a program she already has installed.

Like if you want to imitate, even badly, the imitation should at least be functional.

Yep, definitely forgot to list this complaint. Frankly a paper with a good reputation having a left lean would seem obvious to me — the right abandoned reality a long time ago.

I think it makes more sense if you start from the supposition that centrists in America are just right-wingers who still remember how to be ashamed of their batshit views when they’re in public.

From what I’ve seen so far, a number of reasons:

1. It’s not overly accurate, with a tendency to report from a basis of American centrism as though that’s the sole metric to measure what is left and right. I assume they decided they had to pick something to base it off of, but even a lot of Americans take issue with what an American centrist considers left-wing.

2. It’s a bot, and some folks hate those enough to downvote it every time rather than block it.

3. Some folks prefer to decide for themselves what’s credible. I’ve also read comments saying they don’t like that there’s no disclaimer — plenty of people get riled when something is presented as though it’s the sole arbiter of truth.

I’ve probably missed plenty, too.

I’ve never been this thrilled to be wrong before.

You said stupid shit and then doubled-down on it when the answers were easily available. I don’t know why being called out on it is so surprising to you ¯_(ツ)_/¯

Sure, I can do that for you too. Is clicking the link easy enough?

Of course the interviewees are mostly anonymous. Does the context of the situation just entirely blow past you? You think it’d be super easy to do this and face no repercussions?

Also, did you just not read the quotes from the one non-anonymous source, or was that too far down in the article and your scrolling finger got tired? I’d rather assume you’re lazy than that you’re pushing an agenda, but hey it seems like we can all just make assumptions and do no digging to see if they’re true, so fuck it, you’re a war criminal that kicks puppies.

How dare you bring your puppy-kicking into this conversation. I demand a peer-reviewed paper proving you’re not a puppy-kicker and the authors must be owned by one of three major corporations or I won’t believe it. What’s that? You don’t even have a referenced Wikipedia page with sources that demonstrate you don’t kick puppies? Well fuck man, even that paper can’t help you now.

If you’d read the article, you’d see where they source the information from. This org often republishes and aggregates content from other sources that further its progressive aims.

All of this is readily available information at the end of a five second search. Just because you don’t read media that isn’t part of a for-profit corporation doesn’t mean they’re less reputable.

The NMS comparison is confusing. NMS didn’t have an early access release. It just released and received substantial updates.

So because you’re unfamiliar with this organization (that has existed for almost 30 years), you called them “questionable” instead and merely implied that the report was fraudulent and that we should all do better than to post articles from sources you haven’t heard of and can’t be arsed to look into.

Then, when someone gave you evidence, you dismissed it because it didn’t agree with how you see the world. Don’t get me wrong, I think the bias fact check site is bullshit about half the time, but you still made an accusation, if obliquely, and provided no evidence.

What’s that thing we can do when people make assertions without evidence again? Oh right, dismiss those assertions without evidence.

The long-haired ones definitely look substantially more like you’d expect a dog to look.

So the fact that the poster talked about the current candidate and the current election just flew right past you, just like the rest of the point, then? I’m not surprised.

As multiple people have already explained to you, in this instance, the Democratic candidate is the only realistic way forward. You are, stupidly, expanding that to all choices forever because, again, you can’t seem to pick up on context.

You know when a walk sign on a traffic light says “walk,” and then it changes to “don’t walk”? You don’t wander into traffic because it said walk ten seconds ago, right? The poster is trying to tell you not to walk into traffic. The next election cycle, they might say something else, because the situation may have changed. Stop reading things that aren’t there.

No one is ignoring anything. Well, except you, since you seem to need every bit of context spelled out for you before you can derive intended meaning from four sentences. Like fuck man, I don’t know how you get through the day with that level of incompetence.