cobysev

I worked at an Arby’s back in high school (over 20 years ago). They told me free refills were a thing because most customers don’t refill more than once, if at all. Also, the soda water costs pennies and the bags of concentrated soda syrup were only like $10 (at the time). A single bag of syrup, mixed with soda water, could fill customer’s soda cups for maybe 2-3 days before it needed to be replaced. Fast food restaurants make insane profits on soda, so they don’t care if customers refilled multiple times during their visit.

There was a big deal about Ubisoft removing Assassin’s Creed 1 and 2 last year, and I remember it because I was in the middle of a replay of the first game, and I quit as soon as they announced they were pulling it. Honestly, I haven’t checked to see if they actually removed them; they may have reneged on that decision over the backlash. I’ll try to reinstall it tonight and see if I can still access it.

But that announcement was when people really started to hate on Ubisoft for their poor business practices, which led to the comment mentioned in this meme. It started because they talked about removing access to paid-for games.

Ubisoft removed Assassin’s Creed 1 and 2 from their online game library, claiming some BS like they want to focus their attention on newer games. The original games had no online services; it shouldn’t take any effort to provide access to them online.

Everyone who owns them through Steam or Ubisoft Connect can’t play them anymore, unless they still have a physical disc for the Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3 consoles. If you bought a digital copy, you paid for a game that you can no longer play.

THAT is why this quote is especially evil. Not because of some choice of subscription vs. buying, but because Ubisoft has the ability to make our fully-paid for games unplayable.

Calling her princess but as degradation

That looks like vocal chords. The white part, it’s what vibrates and changes shape to make sound and pitch when you speak.

I would’ve gone with:

Crocodiles! Do not swim here

I feel like this is more accurate:

They do that with Legacy IPs because most people say well I bought the first one I wouldn’t be a real fan if I didn’t buy the next one.

I hate how accurate this is. However, it can also hurt them because there have been many franchises I’ve refused to buy because I never played the first games and I don’t want to jump into the middle of a story I’m unfamiliar with. I’m a bit of a completionist like that.

I wonder if this is why a lot of games are no longer numbering their new releases and just giving them unique titles. So people don’t think of them as a series and are more willing to buy the latest releases.

On a related topic, I HATE how Call of Duty just made a totally new game and called it Modem Warfare, then started up a new franchise with MWII, MWII, etc. We already had Modern Warfare 1-3! It’s like they’re trying to erase/overwrite their old franchise so when people look them up, they just find the latest games. Very sneaky!

EDIT:

If I could develop a game where customers get nothing and you are required to pay them money. It would be the top funded game by every AAA publisher. Remember the people at the top and especially the shareholders don’t care about games.

This is where microtransactions and DLC (like useless character/weapon skins) come from. The customer gets practically nothing, but they pay the company so much money for it. There are tons of games that thrive on this model (especially mobile games) because selling microtransactions and extra downloadable content that’s just a recoloring of a skin makes way more money than just selling the base game.

That might’ve been a shot before he was hit. The gunman fired off multiple rounds and Trump didn’t immediately react. Plus, the bullet that hit him caught his upper ear. That one looks too low.

My wife has access to my password database. If I go before her, she’s in charge of going through all my accounts and shutting stuff down.

My father actually just passed away a few months ago. I had convinced him to use unique passwords for everything, but he couldn’t keep track of them all, so he just wrote them all down on a piece of paper that he kept on his computer desk. When he passed, my sister took a photo of his password sheet and we both have been going through his stuff, closing accounts, transferring money, notifying his social media accounts of his passing, etc.

For the record, my dad had a Trust set up, with my sister as the executor of the Trust, so we’ve already talked about money stuff (even with my dad while he was still alive) and we’re both in agreement. And we’re both decent people, so there’s no complications with dividing his estate or anything. My sister is in charge of all his finances, and she’s been very straightforward with me about what he had and how it’s being divided up.

EDIT: If my wife goes before me, I would probably give my sister access to my password database. She and I are pretty close, and I’d trust her with that access.

She serves as a distraction, so other Republicans can get away with things that seem tame compared to the drama she’s stirring up. It’s just misdirection; otherwise, Republicans would’ve ousted her themselves for hurting their party.

Remember when Mitch McConnell was in the news constantly for deliberately halting progress to serve his party’s goals? We don’t even hear about him anymore; not since Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert took center stage in the shitshow.

I was referring to PlexAmp. It’s decent, works well, but I just liked the interface for Symfonium better. It seemed more functional than PlexAmp when I switched over to it.

I actually haven’t used PlexAmp in a few years, so maybe it’s gotten better lately. I guess I’ll have to compare apps.

In the US, pensions have almost completely gone away, in favor of 401K programs. A pension is (typically) a monthly fixed income given by your former employer for the rest of your life upon retiring from a career.

The 401K program is more like a retirement savings account; you contribute a portion of your paycheck toward it each month and your employer will match your contribution up to a certain pre-designated amount. Whatever money is in that account becomes your own personal “pension” that you live off of after you reach retirement age. Instead of your employer putting aside money to pay retired employees, now you’re responsible for setting aside that money yourself, with a little extra contribution from your company.

Employers prefer the 401K program because they invest a little extra money into you initially, but then they don’t have to pay out a pension for the rest of a former employee’s life. So they save money in the long run. Meanwhile, your retirement depends on you being fiscally responsible early in your career instead of expecting a fixed income to cover you later in life.

All right, now I’m convinced you’re just a burner account for my wife. You’re still arguing semantics, distracting with irrelevant information, and are willingly misunderstanding instead of contributing to the actual conversation. Looks like you care more about arguing than having an actual productive discussion, so it’s not really worth my time to try and rehash this in even simpler terms for you.

But I will condede, I meant 90 days, not 30. That was an honest slip of the fingers.

EDIT: Fine, because it’s bothering me how poorly you’re following this discussion, here’s an actual response:

Congress in Iraq 2003 authorized before, rather than after. […]

Irrelevant. My point was that the president can act on his own. Period. That was the whole discussion, from the very start. Congress is not needed. Just because Congress has been consulted with, and approved further action before the president gave the order, doesn’t mean he can’t do it.

You’re trying to say the president can’t send troops overseas into enemy territory without approval from Congress and that is simply wrong. You’ve been quoting the War Powers Act in every thread here, and even corrected me on the 90 days rule, yet you still act like the president’s hands are tied without Congress signing off on everything he does. That’s literally the point of the 90 day rule!

The name of the medal was official. I’m not going to re-litigate the entire subject, but if your point is that there was an aversion to using the word “war” in public, that simply wasn’t so. […]

Okay, let me simplify this for you, since you’re struggling with reading comprehension. Publicly, it was called the Iraq War. Because that’s the term the civilian population latched onto and we couldn’t shake that perception. Same with Vietnam War, Korean War, Gulf War, etc. Not official wars, but the public named them and we didn’t argue semantics with news agencies, lest it ruin our credibility. (Like arguing with trolls about semantics online. Hmm…) We do not have an aversion to using “war” publicly. We actually prefer to use that word publicly.

In an official capacity though (read: behind-the-scenes military documentation/records/discussion/etc.), it’s always been the Iraq Campaign. We do not call it a war because Congress never declared war. It’s literally as simple as that. Our written military history will officially have it documented as a military campaign and nothing more. The medal awarded for participation in the Iraq War is literally called the Iraq Campaign Medal.

The medal you’re referring to in your comment is the Global War on Terrorism medal. Not related to the Iraq War, or any war in particular. It’s a stupid declaration by a former president who wanted to make a statement about standing up to the 9/11 attacks, and award any service member who takes part in this so-called “War on Terror.”

And again, we use the word “war” publicly, so there’s no reason we can’t have it on that particular medal. It’s not referencing a specific military campaign, so it can be named the Global War on Terrorism medal. Refer to the “War on Drugs” comment in my last reply.

I usually don’t have to deep dive into the specifics about these things with civilians

Perhaps an assumption?

An assumption about what? You obviously didn’t serve in the military, or else you would know all this and I wouldn’t have to spell this out multiple times for you. So yes, I’m assuming you’re just a civilian who read a few articles and are now struggling to follow actual information from someone who experienced it first-hand through the military, because it didn’t align with whatever comprehension you took away from the subject.

Man, you sound just like my wife. Always arguing semantics when the overall point I’m making is pretty clear. ;) Now it’s my turn to point out the (ridiculous) semantics of the GWOT.

The Global War on Terrorism was a (rather ignorant) blanket statement made by then-president George W. Bush Jr., implying the concept of fighting terrorism across the globe. It had nothing to do with the Iraq War; it actually predates that campaign. It was a direct response to 9/11, with the Iraq War being the first active military campaign justified under it. We’ve been awarded the two GWOT medals for various military campaigns around the globe. I earned the expeditionary medal from a humanitarian deployment to Africa, of all places, and earned the service medal while stationed in Japan. And they’re still being awarded today, even though we’ve completely pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Despite using the word “war” in the medal’s name, the concept behind it was akin to the “War on Drugs.” It’s not an actual war against a particular nation or people; it’s a war on a concept. How can you fight a concept?!

Terrorism is a very vague word that applies to any situation in which someone uses fear and/or intimidation to get their way. We’ve definitely used that specific definition to justify stepping into situations we had no reason to be involved in. Like Iraq.

Much like the War on Drugs, I’m sure we’ll eventually see that there’s no possible way to win against the concept of terrorism, and we’ll silently phase it out. Heck, we’ve been ordered as of 2021 to start restricting the award of the GWOT-Service medal, so we’re already beginning to phase it out. It was a stupid statement, made by a stupid president who constantly flubbed his words, and shouldn’t be taken at face value.

To your other point, yes, I used the word “just” when referring to the president’s decision. The reason being, it is solely his decision, as the highest ranking leader of the Department of Defense (DoD), to implement the military in “campaigns” across the globe. He does not need anyone’s permission to deploy us.

However, you are correct that the War Powers Act restricts how he uses the military. He can send us out on a whim, but without that approval by Congress, he’d have to pull us back within 30 days. And he’s not allowed to actively order us into hostile situations without approval by Congress.

If we encounter hostilities while out on various campaigns, though, we’re authorized to respond appropriately to the situation via the Rules of Engagement (RoE). Kind of a loophole, which I have definitely seen used before. “Oops, we just happened to be passing through on a patrol and terrorists jumped out of nowhere and opened fire on us! We ended the initial threat, but quick, approve our sustained operations in the area so we can identify and neutralize lingering threats!”

Also, the public referred to the Iraq War as such, and news agencies latched onto the term, so politicians started using it too. And our Public Affairs office instructed military officials who were authorized to speak officially to the public to use common lingo.

But as military members, operating in an official capacity, we were required to use the “correct terminology” in our discussion and documentation, so as not to give off the wrong impression on official records. Which is why we were expected to use Iraq Campaign instead of Iraq War in our official lingo. Future generations will see our official records documented during the Iraq War, and the DoD prefers it’s framed in a certain way, so it doesn’t seem like we were intentionally encouraging a war in the region. As much of a failure as that campaign was, and as paper-thin our excuse was for deploying there, we don’t want people to also think we were just war-hungry terrorists or something. Right?? 9_9

Apologies if my semantics are not 100% accurate; I usually don’t have to deep dive into the specifics about these things with civilians, so I tend to “handwave away” the details, as you put it. I’m sorry if was a bit loose with my verbiage.

I mean, my point still stands. They weren’t officially declared wars, and they were the president deciding to get involved in foreign affairs. The only difference is that Congress decided to vote on our involvement from 1973 onwards.

So our latest presidents have been more generous about sharing the decision instead of steamrolling ahead on their own. Probably a better move politically; he won’t take the full blame if the decision isn’t popular, like Vietnam.

Technically only Congress can authorize a war. However, the president can and often will undertake “peacekeeping efforts” or “counterinsurgency operations” or “targeted strikes” without congressional approval.

I served in the US military during the Iraq War. Everyone refers to it as a war, but within the military, it was officially called the Iraq Campaign, as it was a military campaign sanctioned by the president. We couldn’t officially call it a war because Congress didn’t approve a war in the Middle East.

Technically, the last war Congress approved was WWII. The Korean War, the Vietnam War, even our first foray into Iraq with the Gulf War… none of these are official wars. Just the president deciding to step in and get involved in foreign conflicts.

I’ve been maintaining a self-hosted music library for so long (30+ years now), there used to not be any tools for editing metadata. I used to have to go into file properties and manually edit the data for each individual MP3 file. Nowadays, I use Mp3tag to manually edit entire albums at a time. I have ADHD though (the hyperfixation kind), so I’ve literally dedicated thousands of hours to manually fixing metadata.

I guess I never bothered to look for more advanced tools to auto-update metadata. I had to go in and manually fix stuff that updated automatically from the Internet in the past, so I guess I stopped trusting online databases. But they’ve really advanced since the last time I went searching for tools, and their databases are a lot more complete in this day and age. I’m gonna play around with some of these programs and see how well they work.

I host my music library through Plex, then use Symfonium on my phone if I want to stream my Plex music remotely, just because I like their interface a little better than Plex’s.

My father just passed in January. He was adamant that we not have a funeral for him. He said there was no point in wasting all that money to shove his body in a hole and leave it there. Instead, he signed up to donate his body to science. As soon as he passed, I called a phone number on a card in his wallet and they came and claimed his body. That was it. Whenever they finish whatever research they’re doing, they’ll cremate his remains and return them.

He said, if we really wanted, we could hold a “celebration of life” for him. Just a small barbeque with friend and family to remember him by. He just asked that his favorite beer was left sitting at an empty chair for him.

I just sang it with a syllable pause after “Simpsons.” Either that, or just slip in the word, “and” at the beginning.