As in, trolling people to believe these things actually happen, I think.

There’s difficulty, then there’s balancing issue. We expect difficulty, but not invalidating certain builds entirely.

Doesn’t lemmy.ml always complain about their comments being deleted by lemmy.world? Sounds like most people care about this issue.

It’s not. You don’t have to play the K-Pop USB sticks, but you sure as hell can’t avoid smelling the shit NK drops on your house.

1. Robots presumably don’t have a need to be gendered, at least in most portrayal of robots I’ve seen.
2. The creator refered to it with a male pronouns, probably because their vision of the character have masculine features. That doesn’t necessarily mean the character itself is male gendered.

The answer to your second question is that ‘he’ was historically used as generic pronouns, though it’s not as acceptable nowadays.

Only NFTs died, so I guess part of crypto did.

Thanks to recessive genes, it’s definitely possible for two paint brushes to birth another form of brush.

So teams don’t use intermediates to avoid using up their soft tyre allocation. They should add some wiggle ground as the FIA can be slow at announcing things, but ultimately this is all on Ferrari.

There are lots of comments on that thread trying to divert the issue by pointing out the violence done by the western countries. I would assume his comment was in response to one of these comments, so he wouldn’t be the one to bring up the West into the discussion.

It seems the top one is from a Filipino movie called “My Ex and Whys”.

That tweet doesn’t mention the word disgusting at all.

Giant Weta actually looks cute, though. This one, not so much.

And AMD is following along with the stupid naming scheme in the next generation.

Soury pungent smell.

Any suggestions that are easy to use for casuals?

He’s only offering a reason, not necessarily that he supports the reason. Are you guys so fragile in your beliefs that you can’t even handle a simple suggestion of a benefit to an opposing view?

A suggestion of a benefit to open-carrying does not equal endorsement, nor does it mean opposing the view that open-carrying can be dangerous. Try to be more open-minded.

Isn’t one of the point of all those telescopes we built in space and on earth to prove or disprove our hypothesis regarding astronomy? Is that not experimentation?

If we all didn’t recommend Chrome, we would still be using IE now, probably.

I see… so this would be a person who is so extremely stupid that they would attack someone with a stun gun on their belt, but not a regular gun.

You seriously still can’t comprehend why someone would more likely attack someone with a less than lethal weapon than someone with a lethal weapon?

That doesn’t sound especially plausible.

Can you explain why?

And, again, I never said they were a deterrent, you did.

You said a stun gun is a deterrent. You also claimed they are the same level of deterrent as a gun.

I never made a claim that they were a deterrent. I was merely responding to your claim that they were.

And that’s where the communication breaks down, I think. My point is not that guns are an effective deterrent, but I was explaining that from the perspective of the queers that live among bigots, they would only open-carry if they think that doing so would reduce the risk of being attacked. You then provided an alternative method of carrying a stun gun. Is it wrong to assume that you were claiming stun guns are an effective deterrent, then?