Not being forced to follow environmental regulations (hence destroying the environment) is significantly more profitable than following them.

Or do you think op is talking about companies who produce literally nothing but harm to the environment?

Some people misuse the term so I wanted to be sure

What about lawns reconverted to preservation spaces with native plants, and an occasional bumbling human meandering about?

The school I work for runs eight 7 1/2 hours but we could run 7 flat if we had a bigger building or less students. We need three lunch periods to fit them all in the cafeterias.

I get the hate, single player can be really tedious in those games. I do really like getting a group together to run through it, but that’s the main reason I enjoy those games.

Oh I thought you were referring to the whole “not reproducible and not following basic scientific method” part

And the Japanese

If I didn’t already like palworld I would buy it just to hate on Nintendo more, but that’s just me.

I definitely have some games I need to use nexus mods for (looking at you stardew) but it’s honestly such little hassle that I don’t mind.

And as best I understand it, didn’t even use proper scientific method to even make their study replicate to prove what they were doing worked to any extent.

Which isn’t the worst part at all, but just shoves it waaaaaaaay further down the torture side and removes any scientific use at all.

Do other launchers have the workshop functionality to add mods directly from their launcher? That’s been something I love about steam

I mean, I have a switch from like 8 years ago and while I enjoy it for the mobile gaming while on long flights I wouldn’t buy a new one after all the shit Nintendo keeps pulling. I don’t know which other handheld would be a good alternative, so I don’t really throw shade at people buying new ones but I would like the company to hurt a bit.

Still no storage expansion slots or audio jack so they can still go pound sand.

Just declare that you have a bottle of alcohol over 25%. They don’t really care all that much.

I’ve resigned on ideological grounds twice. It’s hard to do, especially if you don’t have a safety net or savings to tide you over until your next job. That being said, I think that executive pay should be reduced to compensate for job losses (as a payout to all the people who got fired) anytime shit like this happens. Make the C suite take accountability for their gambles.

Love it. Hope Tesla’s next and his house of cards collapses as all the debt leveraged on his Tesla shares comes calling.

I’ll admit it made me slightly giddy for a few seconds.

I needed those seconds though, so I’ll take em.

Where did I blame you?

The people suffering are undefined but generally outgroups in society as those are the ones that have been historically vilified to pull a group together. See: Jews vs Nazis, Immigrants vs Republicans, Indigenous peoples vs Colonists, Robber Barons vs Settlers as a couple classic examples with their own unique circumstances. If you don’t care until it affects you directly, again I would call that amoral.

Why do you think it’s permissible to overlook intentional suffering of others to create a more cohesive cultural fabric?

A question about why you wouldn’t have an opinion on a pretty clear moral issue. Unless of course you think it’s permissible to which I would argue again: immoral or amoral.

Lotta people claim to be apolitical these days. If you’re US based, I would argue amoral fits better.