SwingingTheLamp

I'm not a gamer, so I had to look up the definition of a third-person shooter. It seems like very poor terminology; it's actually a second-person shooter. There's the player (1st) giving commands to an on-screen avatar (2nd). Where's the 3rd person?

I'm thinking a true third-person shooter would consist of an NPC shooting at your unarmed avatar?

By the time I left r/fuckcars, people were asking this question several times per day, or every 15-20 minutes at peak times. I recall that the moderators had an auto-mod bot that would respond, and my paraphrase of it is something like this:

We don't hate the cars, per se, but rather the physical, environmental, and social destruction wrought by designing all aspects of daily life around their use (to the near-exclusion of anything else). Small, cheap, utilitarian motorcycles are better than cars in a lot of ways (space, cost, fuel economy), and worse in others (noise, pollution). They're fine, as long as the riders aren't demanding that the entire landscape and society be structured and built to cater to their machines.

LPT: Statements that include the word "problematic" can be safely ignored. If the speaker could articulate the problem, they would.

There’s a reason New Yorkers hate going to Times Square :]

They're privacy-conscious and don't want to appear in stock footage?

That's brilliant! Now, when users replace their phone, they also have to replace a second device. Hooray for planned obsolescence!

Crikey, very well-written and well-reasoned! I would just add:

(4)(b) Human have perfect information about the world.

In order to make rational choices, producers and consumers need perfect information. This also ignores so much of reality. Again, there are so many examples, but even in a simplified model transaction of buying a loaf of bread includes so many variables that it would be impossible to know them all: All of the bakeries offering bread, the prices they ask for their loaves, the sensory quality of the bread, the nutritional quality, the bakeries' food safety standards, and so on. Imagine trying to investigate the food safety record for the producer of each item in your typical grocery cart—an impossibility.

No, but I met a gar named Vincent once.

Well, that's the thing, isn't it? It doesn't matter what people say, the truth will reveal itself no matter one's feelings about MAGA or liberals. Whatever people have said about other politicians, I've been watching the President's mental state deteriorate in a manner congruent with the progression of dementia since the early signs in his first term. And, for the record, no, that doesn't mean he's going to be gone soon. The life expectancy after diagnosis is years; he might die before the end of his term, or (with the best care in the world) he might not. We'll see about Schumer, too. I haven't seen any dementia symptoms in him, but I haven't paid any attention to him, either.

But Trump was showing early signs of dementia during his first term. He's showing signs of rapidly-advancing dementia now. Non-dementia health claims about other politicians without evidence in no way discredit the claim that he's visibly declining with dementia symptoms. The difference here is evidence. (And is it really an improbable that an elderly President would suffer dementia in his second term, and that his staff would try to cover it up?)

Quite a few of them actually do have public transit in the form of shuttle buses.

That's weird, even by hyperbole standards. Which politicians, exactly? I'd only heard it about Biden, because Repiblicans project enough for an IMAX multiplex.

Seems like Germany could save a lot.of.money by not building lanes that you're not allowed to drive in!