Nah you can’t see them, they are cloaked.

Maybe a moon, there’s actually also a larger planet just below the warbird on the right.

I think it’s entirely possible that they chose to compare to a 3 year old phone not because they are only targeting those upgrades to people with 3 years old phones, but because it sounds a lot more impressive that way instead of just the smaller incremental improvements over last years model.

It should also be noted that Apple admitted at one point to purposefully slowing down older iPhones too, which very clearly was done to get people to upgrade. If that’s not planned obsolescence I don’t know what is.

You talk about them as if they are some benevolent entity, when that’s just very much not the case.

I dunno… Have you ever opened a crab up before cooking it? It’s pretty much all goo inside an exoskeleton.

So you hate that PCs are more capable and can display better graphics at higher framerates and have rationalized it to yourself that worse graphics and framerates on a console are “how the developers intended”.

I can understand not wanting to tinker with settings and just load a game up and know what to expect in terms of graphics and framerate, but I just cannot disagree more with what you are saying here. Building games to console limitations and not even giving the option for fidelity or framerate just seems like a step backward.

So much drama over star trek memes. Some people really need to feel like they are the king of their made up little internet castle. In case I wasn’t clear, I’m not saying that about you.

I used to moderate a decently sized subreddit. I genuinely wanted to make the community a better place. But there was no escaping the drama. People take this internet shit way too seriously sometimes.

Also if you are an alcoholic and trying to get sober, this stuff is so so so not worth taking a drink over. Though I realize that was likely more a joke than anything.

deleted by creator

Nah, shran should be the biggest head on the poster.

The results of a war fought about that (and other obvious things) disagrees too.

There’s way too many people in here that either don’t know the difference between succession and secession, or don’t know how to spell, or just were too lazy to look at what they were typing or what was being autocorrected.

And you don’t see that on lemmy? It’s everywhere. Well maybe less so actual arguments and more just 100% anti Israel.

And most other countries also have much stricter gun control laws too.

We could work on those things and the gun problem too.

So again, you are being very transparent by completely disregarding the guns as if they somehow aren’t part of the gun violence problem.

Either way. I think this is where I drop out of this. We are going in circles and while I agree we should work on the things you mention, we clearly just disagree about the actual guns themselves. And of course neither of us are actually in a direct position to make changes to any of those things, I assume. So you have a good one.

I personally didn’t propose any of those policies. I genuinely don’t know what would work best. I just think you are being really transparent in treating the guns themselves as having nothing to do with the issue of gun violence.

I think everything you were saying would be great to accomplish. It’s just really disingenuous to propose them knowing there is a slim chance any of them will happen while completely ignoring the actual guns, just because you want to keep your guns.

We do have a societal problem. We also very much have a gun problem.

And proposing all these other things you know won’t get accomplished is a way to shift all the responsibility away from the gun issue itself.

And you aren’t being emotional about even the thought of some more gun control or anything to even tackle that issue head on? Come on.

And they are all still complaining about this

I didn’t specify a plan one way or another. I just think it’s crazy that the talking points you presented seem pretty clearly designed to just kick this issue down the road, cause at least that way you still get to have your guns.

And believe me, solving all those things you mentioned would be great. But why not also try and do something about the major gun issues at the same time too?

So basically… Fix every other nearly impossible to fix problem first before even deciding to do anything about the actual guns, if anything at all?

And to be clear, by impossible to fix, I mean politically, not that these problems are actually unsolvable.

Isn’t the fact that it tries to stop big business from making even more money enough for them not to support it? Or just the mere fact that Democrats were the ones proposing it?

I can only hope history remembers that one time on his first day of his new job when his mom called him live on air to tell him not to do exactly the shit he is doing.

So… It’s a business