Depends on your bunny rabbit stance, I reckon.

Oh my goodness. Thank you for pointing out the different VA. I knew something felt off, moreso than the new character models.

Also, I can't help but feel like the updated Frank wandered out of the basement tier of fighters from a Street Fighter title. I feel like he should be chubbier and ruddier. I can't speak for the direction they took the character in later installments but he always felt like kind of a goober schmuck whose "instincts" finally paid off. I like that characterization, especially in light of the game's satire of clueless Americans.

I'll keep an eye on this one. I never did get that achievement for killing the 53,000 zombies in a playthrough...

Not that it really matters one way or another, since I'm sure this proposal would be ignored no matter who the author is, but I feel like having an undergraduate student be responsible for your call to nationalize the public railways is not great for your credibility.

Of course that's not really fair, and homey is a research fellow at an Ivy League institution, so it's not just Bubba from the local frat house's senior project, but still.

What are the general contents of a typical journal entry for you? I hear the concept bandied about frequently, but I've never understood the relation between journaling and better mental health.

The toxicity I bring to the table is that it feels, to me, indulgent at best, egotistical at worst. Which is its own kettle of fish I need to do something about, but, hey, one issue at a time.

Bro, maybe the Wally world clientele is different in your neck of the woods but seeing someone with makeup on, or their hair did (leaving aside the question of quality for the time being...) is the exception to the rule.

Love Ahoy's essays. They're so slick.

Wouldn't the establishment of a new precedent require the Supreme Court to overturn their previous ruling though? I'm not super familiar with the judicial system, so perhaps someone could tell me if I'm on the right track here with this hypothetical series of events

1. Charges filed
2. Defense motions to dismiss case on grounds that police don't have to protect anyone
3. Prosecution counters that that's not necessarily what they are arguing here
4. Judge at the lowest level with jurisdiction decides to allow the case to proceed based on prosecutions argument that they aren't litigating settled law
5. Trial
6. Defendants found guilty
7. Defense files an immediate appeal and a stay of sentence because they still feel like their clients are protected by precedent
8. Repeat until Supreme Court gets a writ of certiorari asking them to take up the appeal
9. If SCOTUS accepts the case, they will decide if A) the defense IS actually protected by precedent in this scenario B) whether previous precedent is constitutional and C) the ultimate fates of the defendents 9.1 If SCOTUS does not take up the case, the lower court's decisions are affirmed and that becomes legal precedent.

Is that a probably series of events? Obviously the suit being allowed to continue and the defendents being found guilty are huge assumptions, but, assuming they come to pass, am I on the right track here?

I'm looking to reenter the dating pool in the near future and this has been on my mind, especially in light of Roe and my location in middle America. Would you be willing to share your personal experience with the procedure? Everyone says it's very easy, but I gotta be honest, it makes me nervous.

My interpretation, though I do not understand the greater context of this character, is that he is referring to homelessness in general in the first panel, but dealing with a homeless person in the second. Which is to say, that ignoring the systemic problems which result in homelessness does not preclude acts of charity for the rich to make them feel better/tax write offs/a genuine belief in doing good/image rehab. The rich get whatever benefit they sought from the exchange, the specific recipient of their charity gets a hopefully life-changing boost, and down the road a landlord evicts a family after raising their rent 100% over a few years, thus replenishing the pool of the underclass. In fact, by demonstrating these acts of philanthropy, the wealthy provide ammunition for ideologues who want to gut social welfare by pointing to these generous acts of the elite.

So, I don't see the split or twist that occurs between the two panels that others have commented on. To my mind, both of the panels tell a consistent story. A wealthy man is determined to ignore homelessness when he sees a beggar. He then gives the beggar a pittance and continues along his way, wilfully ignoring the systemic issues that allow homelessness to occur (and which, as a wealthy fat cat type character, perhaps he could do something about if he had the will to do so).

Idk if that was the initial intent, but it's my headcanon now.

Blackgate.com - the remnants of Black Gate magazine, which was published from 2000-2011 and then continued in digital form since. It focuses primarily on vintage literary fantasy, though occasionally the an article will be published in films or new fiction. Of particular note to nerds is the Cinema of Swords column by Lawrence Ellsworth, who fantasy fans may be familiar with as the Principal Narrative Designer for Baldur's Gate 3. I'm not so immersed in the fantasy world that I understand most of what is discussed on the blog, but it is a nice taste of the old Internet, one which might resonate with other fediverse users.

I assumed something like shredded wheat.

Seconding the other poster. Excellent write up; you distilled every rebuttal point I would have made to OP perfectly.