Please, LaVar Burton was already rocking this look in 1987.

I still get emails from my dormant account, and according to my Gmail, the sender is, “X (formerly Twitter),” so I don’t think we’re done with that yet.

I mean, fair enough, but I’ve never heard anyone use tankie as…well, not a pejorative. Like, I’ve never heard a liberal call themselves a, “libtard.”

The worst thing for a tankie like me was running here to get away from the insane msn-pilled discourse, finding some actual leftists, only to have have leredditors chase me down sayin’ i am following them.

Uh…tankies and leftists are not the same thing (though the liberals on Political Memes don’t seem to understand the difference). Tankies are authoritarian-apologists. It was coined by British communists who wanted to differentiate themselves from pro-Soviet communists (specifically, communists who were defending the Soviets sending tanks into Hungary). In the modern sense, it’s used to describe communists who defend authoritarian socialist or communist states. If you don’t feel compelled to justify Stalinism, the Tiananmen Square massacre, or the Uyghur genocide, you’re probably not a tankie.

The controller was weird, but they didn’t have a template yet for what a joystick controller should look like. Also, it makes a lot more sense if you understand that you’re never supposed to the D-Pad/Joystick at the same time. Left hand goes on the D-Pad handle for 2D games, Joystick handle for 3D (some third-party developers didn’t understand this though).

Notice how you didn’t address any points in the actual paper.

You didn’t bring up any points of the paper! You literally just posted a link saying, “the proof is in the pudding.” You clearly didn’t read it, so why would I do more work to refute your point than you did to make it? You’re not only going to ignore every point I bring up, but you expect me to read and refute any hyperlink you share, even though you can’t even articulate what you’re linking to?

The closest thing you’ve done to commenting on the content of the paper was saying it, “looks at many different angles, and actually quantifies things.” You’re like the kid that didn’t read the assignment but is desperately trying to give his book report based on the synopsis on the back. Oh, you think this paper has, “actual analysis,” from, “many different angles,” and, “quantifies things?” How specific! Clearly you’ve read the entire thing and have a commanding grasp of its contents.

I mean, FFS, I typed, “was the Democratic primary rigged,” and this paper was the second result, and the first one that did nothing to challenge your world view. This is just embarrassing.

OK, I know I’ve said this twice already, but I’m really done now. I’ve wasted enough of my life dunking on you. This is starting to be embarrassing for me as well. You can go ahead and have the last word. I’m out.

You are taking one paper, from one individual, who by the way, appears to have a pro Clinton bias based on his debate analysis, and treating it as though it is scientific fact. Also, I think if you were being honest, you’d admit that you only found the article because you did a web search for, “was the Democratic primary rigged,” and picked the first thing that supported your worldview, while ignoring everything that contradicted it. That’s cognitive dissonance, and it’s why you are a deeply unserious person. I’m done. Go waste someone else’s time.

you’re spewing opinion, which you convinced yourself is fact

This is you my dude. I’ve referenced, like, 5 different real world events, and your response is to show me a single academic article that backs up your worldview (which I’m pretty sure you didn’t read, since you didn’t actually reference any of its contents) and say I sound like a Trump supporter. You think I’m misrepresenting Harry Reid? Here’s the quote:

Bernie really had a movement out there, and it wasn’t right to treat him that way…I knew — everybody knew — that this was not a fair deal

Sounds a lot like Harry Reid is saying Bernie Sanders wasn’t given a fair shot at the primary. Sounds a lot like I was giving a fairly accurate interpretation of his words. Sounds a lot like you were spewing your opinion as a fact when you said I misrepresented him.

I’m done. You’re a deeply unserious person and this is a waste of my time.

I don’t know what to tell you dude; I don’t know what would have happened in an alternate timeline where Clinton didn’t take over the DNC’s finances before the election. I don’t have a time machine.

I can tell you that there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that the primary was rigged, prominent Democrats like Harry Reid admitted it was an unfair primary, and when the DNC was sued by Sanders donors for fraud, they chose to argue that not that the primary was fair, but that the DNC was under no legal obligation to run a fair primary. I can also tell you that comparing real evidence of the DNC colluding with the Clinton campaign to win her the nomination (for which Debbie Wasserman Schultz was forced to resign) isn’t the same as Trump supporters wild fantasies about ballot stuffing, and anyone who would draw a false equivalence between the two is either arguing in bad faith or ignorant of the basic facts surrounding the 2016 primary.

Silly me, I thought that the investigation of interim DNC chair Donna Brazile that showed that Clinton had undue influence over the DNC over a year before the primary, a superdelegate system that heavily favored Clinton, and the fact that the AP called the race the night before 6 states voted was pretty good evidence. I see that this single academic paper and the fact that no one wrote about email with the subject line, “Best way to rig the primaries for Clinton,” proves otherwise.

I think you’re missing the part where Clinton paid off the DNC’s debts and became it’s only financial lifeline, for which DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz abdicated control of party to Clinton’s team long before she secured the nomination.

Wow, Sony execs figured out something gamers and devs have been saying for ten years. Really proving why the C-Suite guys get the big bucks.

Also, apparently the entrance and exits to driveways are infart and utfart.

I think everything after Gen 1 holds up pretty well, even if it’s a little rough. And once they figured out the physical/special split in Gen 4 they basically just published the same game over and over again with slightly different gimmicks and stories.

Fair enough, I didn’t realize how much repetition there was in that line, although I would say that the 3DS was a pretty big innovation over the DS. It’s also a testament to their willingness to take big swings that the would go back to the concept of a 3D handheld after the Virtual Boy debacle.

I’m curious to see how this goes. Nintendo really is the only company I’d consider buying a console from anymore. Sure, they’re hardware isn’t very powerful, but it’s pretty hard to justify an Xbox or Playstation when a good gaming PC is a better long-term investment. Nintendo, for all if its faults, is constantly innovating what a system can be, while it’s competitors just release the same product with upgraded graphics.

That being said, the Switch 2 sounds like exactly that: a slightly upgraded switch without any real innovation. Usually, even Nintendo’s failures are interesting, like the Virtual Boy or the Wii U. They almost never release a slightly upgraded product (the only exception being the Game Boy Pocket, which they only made because the Virtual Boy flopped)

No matter what you think of Nintendo as a company, the industry does better when they’re pushing the envelope. For all the (well deserved) praise the Steam Deck gets, it wouldn’t exist if the Switch hadn’t laid the groundwork for it. I’d much rather see Nintendo take a big swing, like integrating AR or VR, into a less powerful system than see them push out a next gen Switch every 5 years. Hopefully there’s more to the Switch 2 than just a hardware upgrade, or else Nintendo (and maybe even consoles in general) might be in trouble.

The thumbnail for my next reccomended video is perfect.

Interesting! According to this, plasma phasers were a proposed weapon against the Borg in Best of Both Worlds. I’ll have to rewatch it to be sure, but I think that adds weight to the idea that Borg shields are only really effective against phaser weapons.

So, I don’t think that’s true. We’ve only ever seen them adapt their shields and weapons to phaser frequencies, and the rotating-frequency strategy was pretty effective throughout TNG and First Contact. It seems more like that adapting to phaser frequencies just piece of technology that assimilated rather than an having an innate ability to adapt to any attack.

I don’t know, Borg shields seem highly selective in how they work. The ships shields seem like they function like every other starship shields, which would mean deflecting solid objects/phaser fire. The only difference is that they adapt to phaser frequencies, but that’s not entirely helpful since phasers are distinct from lasers and exclusive to Star Trek.

But the Borg also have personal sheilds that seem to only deflect phasers, since the crew are able to physically touch the borg when they’re shielded like this. Does this mean that the Borg’s ships shields actually can’t deflect physical objects?

Here’s another one; the personal borg shields can’t seem to stop Picard’s holodeck bullets in First Contact. Does that mean they can’t stop any physical objects, or does it mean they can’t stop hard light constructs? If they can’t stop hard light, can they even stop true laser fire?