Well said and I agree :)

China isn’t reliant on imported food, from the US or anywhere.

*LeVar

lol you’re just buying shitty belts, try and buy some full grain belts from someone who makes them

That’s the trouble with words like ‘artificial’ and ‘natural’. They mean nothing. It would be better to call them refined additives, because I expect the “stevia” would be in a refined, extracted form when added - whether substantially changed from the form present in the plant or not, this could be considered artificial, if we insist on using this word.

Yeah, and Lincoln coulda faxed a samurai.

Obviously intent comes into it, where wearing a reductive costume without any awareness (your Halloween costume example) is callous and ignorant of that person. I think some ignorance can be excused if this person couldn’t reasonably be expected to understand all the implications of a costume, even if it’s someone who should be expected to (thinking Trudeau Jr or Prince Harry when younger).

Regardless of the hypothesised (or real) impact to the community of someone wearing clothing arguably offensive to minorities with ancestry in the culture being mocked, those aspects aren’t what this cartoon is about. It’s about idiots who don’t understand nuance and repeat shit they see on social media unthinkingly until you get this absurd situation where someone wearing a hat and wearing it well is screamed at in public for no discernible reason.

Is that supposed to be the cytokine, or the gas dichlorocarbene?

I think he’s going for a hipster New York Loft aesthetic.

Palette. A pallet holds bricks and a palate tastes food

Intrusive thoughts?

Well observed. Conservatives in the US are reactionary but those described as moderates are basically NIMBYs standing in the way of those who want to tear down what’s left of the country.

No YOU are the piece of shit. Why can’t we debate without unwarranted ad hominems any more? This place is supposed to be better than reddit, but that asks that its users be better. Your post is an indictment - take a look in the mirror before being so vile on the fediverse.

Why not contribute something yourself, or address the arguments they’re making instead of dismissing them out of hand?

Which nine are you counting, out of interest?

But doesn’t shareware refer to software that is distributed freely, playable (maybe with limitations on how far you can play into the game, or how long you can play it for free) but it’s generally a proprietary game that is distributed through this model? I may not have a perfect grasp on the precise meaning of shareware.

I see chess more like abandonware - if someone developed a proto-chess game and didn’t assert their ownership over the IP (recognising that this happened before copyright and IP were understood concepts), doesn’t that make it effectively free to play, noting you of course need a board to play?

Maybe an ancient and highly modded board game doesn’t translate that well to a software/copyright analogy. Also you lost me on your comparison between Mario Party (I think you mean only one person needs to own the game) and the first levels of Doom (which are more like a demo). I don’t see either of these as shareware, though I guess a freely playable demo is a form of shareware with my understanding of the term above!

What do you mean?

I appreciated this comment, that’s a great show and tell story.

Bloody Aussie goths

Read the other comments please.