Sentrovasi

I’m sorry but you’re wrong: effect can be used to mean to cause something to happen. This is different from affect’s verb form, which is to influence something.

Affect also has a noun form, if you’re curious. This duality of effect and affect having both noun and verb forms, even though each has a more popular common usage, is a common thing to misunderstand.

Posting the article here so you all can make your own minds up.

I didn’t think it was misleading, but when I read it I automatically thought the article was talking about the extent of pollution in the ocean, not what everyone else seems to be interpreting it as…

Assuming what he’s saying is true, I still keep coming back to this line:

“My boss said, ‘I would have killed someone who said what you said in the meeting.’”

How does someone say something like that? And how is this something that he’s never been called out for?

Just a small but very important correction: the article says 6 grams per serving. Giving them two extra teaspoons with the small amount that babies take is much more significant.

EDIT: A quick search said that one serving of baby food tends to be around 75g? That means that that’s 8% of it being pure sugar.

The other person is saying that devaluing the US dollar would make it easier for others to buy American products.

I assumed you thought they were talking about strengthening the US dollar, so I pointed out that the original post (yours, I realise now) was talking about devaluation. Not sure why you think devaluation would give greater buying power.

The original post was asking about why devaluing the dollar would be good for Americans.

People don’t really like to read the articles before commenting, huh.

Knowing Stardew was such a beloved game, I knew I had to get context before judging the author because it could be read both ways.

People who assume games not changing = criticism are telling us more about their own uncharitable view of others than anything else.

EDIT: That said, if I were to offer criticism, I feel like the author gives too much credit to Stardew as though it invented or pioneered the tight gameplay loop: perhaps at least some mention could have been made to Harvest Moon, the game from which Stardew borrows - and perfects - most of its major systems.

Also to be fair, it doesn’t go anywhere with that thought that Stardew hasn’t changed. Felt a little low-effort, like a retrospective on Stardew that just basically listed what people liked about it.

Excuse me? Who are the original people in your book and which year is the baseline?

I’m someone who doesn’t have a huge stake in either side and still this take astounds me.

I think it’s an anti-riddle, or a joke, more than anything else.

Some of those are answered. Some of those are also answered in the piece they linked that talks about the zoning issues. And some of those don’t have an answer beyond the obvious. I think the root of your unhappiness may lie with the few points that fit into that last category, but that’s hardly the fault of an article that I wouldn’t consider clickbait.

I’m not sure if we’re reading the same article or some parts didn’t load for you, but it seems full of whys:

Why the supermarkets left at the start
Why it’s harder for them to come back
Why certain urban areas have made it more difficult for them to come back (things like zoning)
Why supermarkets themselves may not want to come back (interview with rep and speculation on violence)

Do these not help answer the question?

Only opened up this thread to see if I could find this copypasta. Thank you for your service.

Seems like it would be exactly what you’d expect, i.e. not ironic at all.

Wouldn’t it eventually fill up with blood and holy water

How long? A week? More?

It can work if the politicians are willing to change to listen to their voter base. Both war parties aren’t single-issue parties. If parties want to win the democratic mandate to enact other policies, they need to play ball with their electorate. That’s the entire point of a democracy - that the electorate gets to be heard. It seems ridiculous that one side is enacting policies that are almost across-the-board unattractive to their demographic, and they’re getting away with it because it can’t be helped, we can’t vote for the other guy, after all. (Obviously the other side is worse, but presumably their side loves their evil policies.)

Your argument basically amounts to “because our political parties will never listen to the people”, which to me is pretty damning, and ensures that the DNC can continue to never listen to their voters. Do I want Trump to win? Absolutely not, even as someone not in the US. But the DNC can’t be allowed to keep looking at these numbers, shrug, and say people will vote for them anyway.

Edit: My main point is that if Biden loses this because people aren’t willing to vote for him, maybe some of the blame should go to the DNC and not just the “stupid voters”?

I think the biggest bugbear for me is always why blame voters voting their conscience and not blame the politicians who refuse to listen to their voter base?

I think the biggest bugbear for me is always why blame voters voting their conscience and not blame the politicians who refuse to listen to their voter base?

Between Biden originally saying that he wasn’t sure if he would run for a second term (in 2019, to be fair), and comments from 2023 that he’s only running because he doesn’t think anyone else can beat Trump, I don’t think it’s far-fetched to think that he would not run just because he’s “the incumbent president”.

I do also buy the argument that people who would vote for Biden wouldn’t suddenly vote for Trump if another Democratic candidate won the primary. In fact, I feel like from discourse on this platform it seems like the opposite is true: some people would vote for Trump simply because the DNC continues to push Biden.