Having never heard of that show, I clicked that link fully expecting a horrible TV adaptation of the SNES era fighting game, and was wholly disappointed.

Godot is fantastic, supports linux natively, and it’s FOSS; highly recommend it.

Sure, it’s not about wasting their time; this says they’re using a 3rd party service to verify, so theoretically they’re paying for that service. It’s about wasting their money.

I wonder if they pay per verification. If so, I wonder how hard it would be to set up a script to just keep submitting new requests a few hundred or thousands of times a day with random photos…

The term is connected to misogyny. If someone just wants to give up dating and that’s the end of it, there’s no reason for anyone to be ticked off by that idea. It’s the doomer attitude surrounding it and the effects of it that cause problems. You used the term ‘black pill’, which has specific connotations - it’s not simply choosing to give up dating.

The term black pill, first popularized in the 2010s on the incel blog Omega Virgin Revolt, refers to accepting the futility of fighting against a feminist system. Blackpilled incels are encouraged to either commit suicide or “go ER”/be a “hERo,” referencing Elliot Rodger’s 2014 Isla Vista murder spree that has been called an act of misogynistic terrorism.

(Source: Britannica)

Great - that’s what we were trying to go for, but the inability to load multiple templates simultaneously makes it difficult to confirm!

Group Name: Furries of the Fediverse

Template: https://canvas.fediverse.events/#tu=https%3A%2F%2Ffiles.catbox.moe%2F7boa4j.png&tw=157&tx=0&ty=356&ts=ONE_TO_ONE&x=78.5&y=434.5&zoom=1

Matrix: https://matrix.to/#/#Fedi_Canvas-Furry-2025:nope.chat

(Not So) Fun Fact: 5.8 million dogs and cats were put up for adoption in 2024, and in the same year, there were only 4.2 million adoptions. Consider a shelter animal rather than a breeder for your next pet, and consider donating to your local animal rescue.

Anyone else making furry or generally animal themed art is more than welcome to drop their own art in / around these. If you’ve got something you’re planning to draw, and want to pop into the above linked Matrix chat, we’ll try to integrate it and update the template.

@lvxferre@mander.xyz: I don’t believe we’re intersecting your tree, but if we are, we’ll go behind it, not over it.

So, Primer, then? Where you can’t return to a point in time before the time machine was constructed?

On the morality point, I’d argue that we should spend the money to rescue any person if we have the money/means, and it can feasibly happen without excessive risk to other lives, otherwise we’re assigning monetary value to human lives.

Resources are finite, though. If rescuing one person requires, say, 10 units of resources, but rescuing 10 others require only 1 unit of resources, isn’t choosing to rescue the 1 over the 10 already placing relative value on human lives, by declaring them to be 10x as valuable as the others? This is obviously operating on the assumption that we don’t have the resources to rescue everyone who needs rescuing.

My real wonder would be if the majority of Americans would okay the amount of money it would cost to save that one man?

Depends where the money is coming from. Military budget? Absolutely. Being taken from social services and whatnot? No. The amount of money that would cost could save so many more lives if it was used for things here. Choosing to spend it on saving an astronaut rather than on, for example, feeding homeless people and distributing medication and disaster relief is like a version of the trolley problem where the trolley is already heading for the 1 person, but you have the option of switching it to the other track to kill more people if you want to. I’d have a really hard time calling that moral by any metric.

It’s possible (probable, even) but I’m not really sure what the recourse would be there. The EU can’t force Steam to let games onto their platform.

I’m kind of torn on this, really. I do think Steam needs competition, but none of the ones that’ve popped up seem to understand that a lot of the appeal of Steam is the extra features they offer to users, it’s not just a storefront. And to game developers, they offer a lot of free marketing that’s expensive to get outside of Steam. I’d be interested to see studies on how much value the marketing Steam provides brings. If it could be argued that it’s close to the difference in percentage Steam takes vs. other storefronts, I’d have a hard time saying it was unjustified.

Obviously that marketing is so valuable because of the market share Steam has, so if another reasonable competitor who were at least attempting for feature parity for end users, that marketing might come to be worth less, and there’d be a better argument against Steam taking such a large cut.

This is called a Most Favored Nation clause and is not exclusive to Steam, or even particularly uncommon.

The city should just put forth a new plan that involves taking those specific homeowners’ land via eminent domain, and using it to install new parking lots or roadways or whatever will fit to accommodate the new requirements.

“Technology is gonna work to improve us, not just the people who own the technology and the CEOs of large corporations,” Sanders said. “You are a worker, your productivity is increasing because we give you AI, right? Instead of throwing you out on the street, I’m gonna reduce your work week to 32 hours.”

0% chance this wouldn’t also come with a 20% pay cut.

The question wasn’t, “Could this be used as evidence?”, it was “Would this exonerate you?”

Maybe we’re answering two different questions, but I don’t see this being enough to exonerate anyone without some supporting evidence to go with it.

It’s like saying you couldn’t have committed a crime because your TV was on at the time; it seems too flimsy to even be usable if you didn’t have some other form of evidence supporting that it was actually you using it to go along with it. I’m not a lawyer, so it’s possible I’m totally wrong, but surely no competent lawyer would expect that to work and no judge would take that as evidence on its own merits.

It wouldn’t exonerate you, unless you could prove beyond a doubt that it was you using the phone. It’d be easy, if you were planning a murder, to give an accomplice your phone and have them use it all night to cover for you. It might be able to be used in conjunction with other evidence, though, to assist in your defense.

I have heard that small recurring donations are more helpful in general than larger one-time donations, so that’s what I tend to do - small recurring donations to services I use or creators whose content I consume. I tend to only do this when the service or content is primarily donation-supported, though.

This is also easier for me to manage, because it becomes a monthly recurring cost and I can see easily how much I’m spending on donations and adjust them as needed, whereas with larger one-time donations, I tend to lose track of how much the total is in a given period.

Doesn’t actually matter.

A normally weighted die has a weight of 16.67% for each face. No matter what result the first die rolls, the second one has a 16.67% chance of rolling the number needed to total 7. Therefore, the average chance of a (total of) 7 is (16.67 + 16.67 + 16.67 + 16.67 + 16.67 + 16.67) / 6, or, 16.67%, or, 1 in 6.

Consider your example: Die #1 has the following weights:

• 1: 0%
• 2: 20%
• 3: 20%
• 4: 20%
• 5: 20%
• 6: 20%

In your example, if die 2 rolls a 6, there’s a 0% chance of a (total of) 7, instead of the normal 16.67%, but if die 2 rolls a 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5, it has a 20% chance of totaling 7, instead of the normal 16.67%.

The average chance, therefore, is (0 + 20 + 20 + 20 + 20 + 20) / 6, or, 16.67%, or, 1 in 6.