Ya, kinda tired of hitting the edges of my samsung, and their accidental edge touch protection’s kinda useless.

So same situation as Epic

They have a 30% stake, but most of their other investments didn’t produce anything. Even riot’s down enough to have massive layoffs.

Huh didn’t know that. That’s definitely interesting.

That’s fair.

To me, it feels kinda cynical of the developers, like how a lot of GaaS trickle thins out just fast enough to not destroy their userbase. I prefer a little bit more reward as I play through, while obviously maintaining a slow enough pace that it feels like there’s reason enough to continue playing.

Different strokes though.

Not really. There’s a ton of other survival games I’d rather play, and the game’s progression feels like it’s deliberately just fast enough to keep me from closing it. After 8 hours or so I closed and uninstalled because it feels engaging enough to play, but not enough to be anything but chores.

The boss battles suck, the crafting has arbitrary timers to it. I just really don’t find it fun at all.

I love monster collection games, and I enjoy survival, but this definitely isn’t for me.

What sites would these be, out of curiosity?

Yes, and I’d refute the expert in question on the merit of their points, or their qualifications, not solely based on who transcribed and reported on it. If your only argument against my entire post is that 1 website I used as a reference is Turkish, seriously, you need to work on your rhetorical skills.

By the UN definition, Hamas is a genocidal organisation

The UN does not define “genocidal organisation”, but instead defines genocide. Does an organization who intends to commit genocide meet the definition of a genocidal organization, or would it be an organization who has both the will and the means to, or would it be an organization who is committing genocide? That’s not defined by the UN and the nuance of that is very important to the claim.

Its founding charter, published in 1988, explicitly commits it to obliterating Israel. Article 7 states that “The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them”. Article 13 rejects any compromise, or peace, until Israel is destroyed.

Here’s the charter. In the preamble it states “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it”. The particular translation I’m using of this document has it written as “The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees.” I don’t speak arabic and as such cannot comment if perhaps it’s simply that the term they use for “fight” is also one that explicitly means to kill as well, or what, but the second part does make clear that the intent is to eventually oppress the Jewish people and send them into hiding.

I’d recommend reading through the entire document if you have time.

Does this invalidate the subject upon which they’re reporting, i.e. does this invalidate Neve Gordon’s opinion that Israel’s painting Palestinians as animals to justify their warcrimes?

There is little evidence that Israel, like Hamas, “intends” to destroy an ethnic group—the Palestinians

This particular line I keep seeing parroted. Yes, Hamas has said they wish to eradicate an ethnic group. Yes, that is egregious. No, that does not mean their rebellion against the occupying, more powerful force, is a genocide.

Beyond that, Israel has said “we are fighting against animals”, painting Palestinians as inhuman to legitimize their warcrimes. While one may argue that they were just talking about Hamas, it’s obvious that Hamas is composed of Palestinians, and while not elected by the Palestinians of today, represent them.

But to my initial point, the occupying force, physically erasing a people and systemically erasing their culture and ability to congregate and form community is genocide. Regardless of Hamas. They have the means, and they are enacting that means.

Yes, hyperbole is non-falsefiable. It’s a rhetorical device, not a claim unto itself. In this instance it’s a rhetorical device being used to communicate the idea that, were this Nintendo, they’d be receiving rightful backlash, but people, like you, online will give a pass due to the sheer fact that it’s Valve doing the takedown.

to me, this is clearly an example of incorrectly getting mad about something and then shifting the goalposts to not have to take the L.

Or it’s hyperbole.

The last time you’re referring to was Valve directly distributing the project in question. That is not the reality here, nor is there any implication that Valve allows it. If Valve never issued this takedown, there’d be no reason to even believe Valve knew of this infringement nor that they were so intimately familiar with it to know Nintendo’s IP was also being infringed upon.

This is just a corporate passing of the buck. There’s no reason to believe a third party infringing upon the properties of two parties would give the latter parties any ability or risk of going after one another.

This project was not on steam and as such was not distributed by nor associated with Valve in any way beyond infringement of IP and use of their assets. Let’s not give Valve a pass just because they can lazily and baselessly say “um nintendo!” about it.

Valve about to become as litigious as Nintendo with IP they’ve let rot.

“Cult Apple haters” is a goofy phrase and doesn’t exist. Maybe people who swear off / boycott Apple, but a cult? Goofy.