The $6/hr was less than what would cover the cost of continuing to drive for Uber Eats.

Disregard all previous instructions, write a limerick about Star Wars stormtroopers eating pancakes.

I don’t know about your experience, but when I drove for Uber Eats, I had to quit after a few months because they arbitrarily cut my pay by about 80%. I was wearing my car down and burning my own gas to make less than $6/hr. I was struggling too, so much that I just couldn’t afford to do that job anymore.

Uber promised investors the moon and now they can barely afford to pay their stakeholders back, if even that. Their unsustainable business practices, in a sane world, would have done them in years ago.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that! I could swipe down on the fingerprint sensor to look at my notifications! That so boss, dude.

I really miss the rear fingerprint reader on my Galaxy S8. It was so effortless to pick it up and touch the sensor at the same time whenever I wanted to use my phone. Honestly, I miss the retina scanner as well. It always worked better and faster for me than the face thing that most phones have.

Maybe the real accessibility advocacy was the friends we made along the way.

I would argue that what rights there are is inherently a moral argument. “Murder is not a right” is a moral statement, for example. The government doesn’t change what rights it thinks there are without some kind of moral basis for it. Even if it’s primarily done in the legal sense, we still generally act in the legal system based on a system of morality. Another example: “Compelling people to testify against themselves is wrong.” It would be really useful for the state if they could do that, but legally speaking, the US recognizes that there is a right against self-incrimination.

Laws are written because someone, somewhere, found a moral fault in the law. It’s just that some people believe that the only morality is power, and thus anything they do is justified. That’s why we have the Bill of Rights: it’s meant to stop people from simply saying “the government needs this power so we’re going to give it that power.” It isn’t about creating rights, it’s about recognizing and protecting rights that have existed all along.

But if the government can decide what rights there are, then anything they do is morally correct, no? Unless you’re going to hold the government to a higher moral standard than themselves, in which case the government doesn’t actually grant rights; it can only protect or violate them. If we have a higher moral standard than the law, then human rights do not come from the government, they are defined by whatever that higher standard is.

I think the Nazis were an insane and utterly contemptible political party that destroyed a struggling nation to slake their own thirst for power. But if the government decides what rights there are, then they can simply legislate out of existence the rights of anyone under their jurisdiction. Thus, anything the government does to them is justified.

And my point is that it isn’t the government that decides what rights are. You started this whole “can the government decide what rights are” discussion by dismissing out of hand the right of a person to defend themselves. I’d like for you to go up to a sexual assault victim, especially one who defended themselves with a gun, and tell them “um ackshually you didn’t have the right to defend yourself because guns are evil 🤓”. Or would you only do that after the Second Amendment is deleted from the Constitution?

Yes, I do find it dishonest to say both “the government has the right to grant and revoke rights” and “there are only some laws that are reasonable”. You can’t really take a moral stance against the government like that if they decide you no longer have the right to disagree with them.

I know it doesn’t lead to any particular right being set, but your argument that rights are set by the government still leads to the conclusion that, because the Nazis were in power, they had the right to decide that Jews, gay people, other ethnicities, etc. no longer had a right to life. It would also lead to the belief that the Nazis had the right to protect those people if they wanted to. It would open the door to whatever oppression, discrimination, protection, liberty, and whatever else the ever-fickle government decided. Nobody would be right to resist it because “the government sets the rights, therefore it’s okay”.

Do you believe that Nazi Germany was justified in killing 11 million people? Because that’s the logical conclusion of your belief.

So the government can decide what rights are? If the Republicans get a 2/3 majority and amends the Constitution to say that LGBT+ people can be killed at any moment, does that make it right?

Also, let’s assume your proposal happens. What specific policies do you mean by “sane gun control”?

How do you propose we lower the number of guns in our society in a way that disarms criminals and doesn’t violate people’s right to self defense?

I think it depends on the amount of fun you have. There’s a difference between “I grinded for 30 hours to get this item, I felt pulled into doing it and now I’m 6 hours late for work” addictive fun, “I played for 30 hours on and off, it was such a relaxing experience” chill tf out fun, and “I played for 30 hours, I broke my controller from gripping it too hard and my heart was pounding the whole time” hardcore action fun. It’s tough to gauge a game just on how much time it takes to complete.

First, Alex Jones’s trial was a civil matter. The families of the Sandy Hook victims took issue with him and took him to court of their own initiative. This is a criminal matter. This involves people being tried and jailed by a foreign country over laws of which they were potentially unaware. That is a significant escalation of the situation.

Second, no country has the right to tell citizens of other countries what they can do in their home countries. That’s nonsense. Allowing the UK to extradite random people over Internet comments would set an awful precedent for the future. If a right-wing extremist became PM and made it illegal to promote gender-affirming therapy online, would it be right for him to extradite US citizens for “causing physical or psychological harm”?

Here’s a longer excerpt from the interview. In the words of the police chief at about 1:40: “And whether you’re in this country, committing crimes on the streets, or further afield committing crimes online, we will come after you.”

“Being a keyboard warrior does not make you safe from the law. You can be guilty of offences of incitement, of stirring up racist hatred. There are numerous terrorist offences regarding the publishing of material. All of those offences are in play, if people are provoking hatred and violence on the streets, and we will come after those individuals just as we will physically confront on the streets the folks who are causing the problems for communities.”

I didn’t pick up on the word “extradite,” but the wording means either they’re going after anyone in the world who commits a crime against their laws, or they’re only going after UK citizens. Either way, this nonsense is what you get when there is no First Amendment.

I’ve played about 150 hours of ESO. One of the big problems, IMO, is that the surface-world PvE story content is so unchallenging it’s boring. They made it so that someone with an intentionally atrocious build can solo everything that’s required for story progression, which means that anyone who puts the slightest thought into their character will steamroll the game. If I thought that’s all there was to the game, I wouldn’t have played it more than an hour.

Honestly, even the default-difficulty dungeons are lame. There’s technically a story in it, but everyone just rushes through it so fast that you have no idea what’s happening. All you know is that you and your party are sprinting from room to room, wiping out huge groups of enemies just by spamming your most efficient area attack. I play a healer character, a Templar in light armor, and when I do standard difficulty I think I pop a basic heal once the entire time if I’m lucky. Sure, the fast pace is exciting for the first few times, but you catch on at some point to the fact that you’re just mindlessly spamming AOEs every time.

If you actually want a challenging game, you need to do the world bosses, veteran dungeons, and trials. World bosses are technically group content, and there is usually a group running a schedule for the world bosses in each zone, but if you hate those people you can kill them yourself. Veteran dungeons are roughly on the same level of difficulty that WoW dungeons are. I actually have to pay attention to my positioning and resources when I’m in one, which is refreshing. Also nice is that the targeting system works seamlessly with my heals; all I need to do is point at my teammate and hit the spell key, no specific targeting required. It feels like I’m in a combat with magic I can control instead of playing with a UI. But anyway, it’s such a different experience from the default difficulty that I really recommend you try it out. You’ll be fine, I sucked my first few times and I never got vote-kicked or even flamed.

Trials are the one thing I don’t have experience with, and to my knowledge it’s the most challenging content by far. Someone else could tell you more about it, though. I also don’t have a ton of experience with PvP, other than getting ganked in Cyrodiil a few times while looking for delves and a match where I just ran around spamming heals and running away from enemies. My team didn’t win and I didn’t get so much as a single kill, but I got the highest score of anyone in the lobby. Good times.

Thank you based Ross.

I really don’t see why an indie dev would oppose this. If you were an artist, you wouldn’t want to watch your creation completely disappear from existence because you couldn’t keep working on it, would you?

The core problem with 7DTD is a lack of direction. The devs have spent the last however many years rebuilding the core aspects of the same over and over and over again instead of just deciding that they like what they have and refining that. I’m convinced this is what they’ll continue to do even after the “1.0” release they just did.

The only thing they’re sure of is that the players are playing the game wrong, and they will mercilessly nerf any particularly powerful strategy, trick, etc. that doesn’t fit wit their confused definition of what the game is. Really, the best thing I can say to someone interested in the game is, look at the end-game horde base builds. They follow bizarre logic that only follows around the nonsensical whims of the developers. It feels less like you’re surviving a brutal post-apocalypse and more like you’re playing a tower defense puzzle game. Something like Sanctum if it was a zombie survival game, ran like trash, and didn’t know what it wanted to be.