Bet!
Wolf314159
joined 4 months ago
I've used it. But mostly by the time I had created a deck to study, I didn't need it anymore.
Vegan HR Geiger vibes, but I'd eat it.
Maybe serve it on a butterfly platter.
Looks tasty.
Start using it yourself. Use it in awkward, wrong, uncool ways. They'll drop that shit like, "What the sigma Dad!?!"
I'm not biased and I'm not picking a side, but there is a lot of whataboutism is this thread and I stand by my stance that it is a weak argument and a logical fallacy.
The argument is that running in the rain has extra hazards. Running across a now slippery surface is dangerous, increasing a risk of falling. Visibility is generally reduced for everyone (especially if they're wearing glasses), so your also at a higher risk of running into things or being hit by a vehicle. It's harder to detect and avoid puddles when you're moving faster. You'll also splash harder in those puddles, getting your shoes and pants wetter faster. Running through the rain really only makes any sense for VERY short trips or when you can see that you may be able to reach shelter before the rain gets significantly heavier. Otherwise, the difference in how wet you get isn't going be significant enough to risk slipping and falling, splashing through a puddle you might have been able to avoid at a walk, or some other incident because you were moving at a dangerous pace through a slippery and flooded world with reduced visibility.
Getting to your destination safely and unnecessary injury without soaking your socks and underwear is much more important than getting slightly less wet.
I generally wash they with warm water and soap after I'm done or taking a break. I usually take one of those little dish soap bottles from the hotel when I travel to keep in the truck, cuts right through the grease and grime pretty well even if all you have is a jug of water on hand.
Three is the Magic Number.
Runner up: I'm Just a Bill.
Whataboutism isn't a very convincing argument.
Where should the industry go?
Maybe focus more on developing good games that are more than just good graphics. A shit game will still be a shit game at 4k and 120fps. A good game doesn't necessarily need all that to be good. Game developers seem to have lost sight of doing more with less.
The industry has corrupted the mindset of their consumer base with this capitalist driven myth that you need to buy more stuff to be happy. The kids out there trolling about shit graphics and the PCMRs complaining about the lower console specs are gobbling it up. Now that one company is seeing diminishing returns, they're considering pulling back on that growth mantra. Maybe they'll start encouraging game development that doesn't waste so many computing resources for schlocky derivative lazy content. I'm sure they'll find some other way to convince us that in order to keep gaming, we'll need to keep buying.
Fair? What's fair about how they hand out Oscars? Seriously. One example, I thought it has been pretty well established that awards are often handed out because of a person's history of work and not only the current thing they are being awarded for this year. I'm sure this could be hotly debated, but I've never heard anyone accuse the Oscars of being fair.
You asked the question, it's only fair that you do the counting. Memory Alpha has a list of species to get you started.
Most of each of the series is dominated by humanoid species simply due to the economics of it or due to the progenitors in story. But, I seem to remember just as many, if not more non-humanoid species newly introduced in TNG in addition to the ones that first appeared in TOS.