Jokes on you, I read the title, forget that I read the title, read the post, then go back and read the title again 😎

But they said they wouldn’t!

It was very much not an action oriented game. It was more about building resources and exploration. I can definitely see it not appealing to large swatches of the gaming population. Especially those used to the modern spate of action rpgs.

They’re literally selling faster than the original Switch, what the fuck are you smoking?

Wii fit trainer?

Then there’s the film processing, dark rooms aren’t cheap!

Lots of things cause harm while also doing good things. It’s a balance.

The problem is when that balance skews more one way than another.

Sometimes people have ideas that just don’t work out. Even if the same people make another game, unless they just make a carbon copy they’re going to try and do something different. Sometimes it doesn’t work as well as the original, but at least it’s not churning out the same thing over and over and hoping people don’t notice.

Granted, Gamefreak has basically been doing that for 25 years, so what do I know?

I believe the temperatures within the chart are “feels like” temperatures rather than absolute temperatures. The X axis shows absolute values (what would likely show on the thermostat).

At OPs original temperature (91°F) the danger zone would be around 60-70% and higher. At OPs last updated temperature (94°F), the danger zone would be 55% or higher.

phones r bad

Much as I’m sure it’s a quality entertaining game, with games as popular as Minecraft… the only thing that can kill it is collapsing under its own weight.

But why? Just calling things dumb, or stupid, or idiotic without any explanation is just a grade school way of saying “I don’t like a thing”. Without seeking a way to understand, and thus overcome it, it’s always just going to be “I’m smart and they’re dumb”, which is often the argument of those you’d criticize of “inherent stupidity”.

I would say the opposite. At least for the basis of this train of thought. That maliciousness makes one single-minded in their ideals and goals, which inevitably devolves into “Get mine, fuck them”. Which is inherently destructive, both for the person in question and those around them.

People keep trying to attribute maliciousness to stupidity as well. Mostly because it’s easier to dismiss stupidity than argue against it.

He’s shortsighted, narcissistic, and petty. But he doesn’t do things just to prove how much of a big idiot he is. Dismissing everything he does as “idiocy” just gives him more leash to piss on everyone from.

I think it’s a common opinion in childfree circles. anything to dunk on “natalists”.

Seems a little overboard for some kind of friendly conversation, especially when it had nothing to do with my general point. I was just stating that I wasn’t comfortable with marketing in general. The implication being from large corporations.

As I’ve never taken an intro to business course, as I’m not interested in that aspect of hyper-capitalism that entails, I just go on the general context of the thread and general sentiment. Not a super-literal definition given in your community college.

The hyperbole seems to be all yours, you’ve taken a statement I used to lead into the general topic of my comment and somehow built an entire personality out of to assign to me.

I’m not comfortable with marketing. That is my personal opinion. I know lots of other people have other opinions. Some people are neutral, they don’t give a shit. Others seem to think of it as completely and utterly necessary in every degree of society. They’re allowed that, I have no power nor will to take that from them.

I’m perfectly fine without those, yeah. Though you seem to be taking my meaning to a more extreme degree than was inferred.

So why dont sites use multiple columns?

That you’re terrible at reading?

Sure, if you only take it at it’s most extreme and dont use a little bit of critical thinking. I specifically referenced companies in a thread about large corporations manipulating social issues for their own gain. I also gave wiggle room with the 99 out of a 100 reference.

I think you also cast far too wide a net with your definitions of marketing, especially in the context of the conversation happening.

I’d check your own sky to be absolutely sure it’s falling before throwing aspersions like that around. You may have a hysterical over-exaggeration of your own there.