Incomprehensible comment.

Yeah, it’s still popping.

Honestly, I totally get that. But for what it’s worth, the game is more than just maximizing efficiencies like this. This is just a crazy case for me.

Multiboxing is not botting. Conflating the two implies ignorance.

For context, “multiboxing” is running multiple clients at once, and usually stacking them on a single monitor and rapidly flicking through them with a program like EVE-O Preview to activate commands with the mouse in short order. It is allowed in EVE, it is not against the TOS. Some people multibox with tiled windows, or one per monitor, though, because they prefer it for various reasons.

Wow, such a thoughtful and useful comment. I had to be carful to avoid spoilers and you were super sensitive to that while still giving great advice. Bravo and thank you.

The controller support seems good, but this style of platform shooter is pretty rough in general with the swivel aim. I think you could skip this one if you are a controller user (I love them too).

Got any wise tips on how to enjoy the game, without giving anything away? I am at home in these sandboxes, but wouldn’t want to miss out on something fun.

There’s a grain of truth in here, but not quite. One in every four or so (not quite, but we can roll with it regardless) identified species of animal is a beetle. Not one in every four animals, by population nor overall species.

The reasons for this is are many, but may include because beetles are big, easy to catch, agriculturally-significant, and are particularly easy to pin and study, dramatically boosting the count of beetle species we work with on an academic level (lending to higher identification rates). There are also just a shitload of beetle species, naturally.

Scientists estimate something closer to ~10 million species of animals, which would still make beetles a huge percentage of the species, but a far cry from 25%. If you looked at the total number (estimated) of individual animals, beetles are pretty insignificant.

Source: Studied entomology and love me some Coleoptera

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

I always find it so extraordinary when someone replies to one of my comments with some off-the-wall shit like this.

You’re splitting hairs I already split. I specifically pointed out that their core products, you know, the things that actually matter, render the company among the most-reliable tech giants out there. I explicitly countered the notion that the fling-shit-and-see-what-sticks method is anything other than an elaborate R&D scheme.

Yet, here you are, responding to me raging about Google’s failproducts as if I didn’t JUST get finished explaining what that’s all about and how it doesn’t detract from their ability to generate income. They’re not lunatics, you just don’t understand what’s happening. Which again, is wild, because you’re literally responding to a comment where I explained what’s happening.

Trans people are cool. Love em. Full human rights for everyone, end discrimination. This post, though, is obnoxious though.

Sending edicts out to the public is never the play. Use your sidebar. Moderate stuff. Make it cool to not be a bigot. But the second you start doing goofy shit like this, you’re painting a target on your back and coming across way more fragile than you must actually be.

I personally have a policy about blocking any community that has admins who feel it necessary to try to police people’s thoughts. As much as bigots piss me off, this isn’t how people conduct themselves in a place that purports to be a safe haven. You don’t patronize and denigrate the general public out of frustration, unless you want them as an enemy for some reason. The idea you needed you adjust your terminology in retrospect confirms how poorly you wrote your initial message.

Also, I have to say, “We allowed 196 to be here” is a curious statement. What exactly did you allow? Is opening a community a big endeavor? I’ve opened up a bunch, and never have I felt like I was owed someone for doing it.

Ban bad behavior. Don’t try to tell people how to think. We have a word for the latter and it’s not pretty.

It pains me to defend a corpo, but calling Google unreliable for their “fling shit and see what sticks” methodology for developing new products is inaccurate. Google/Alphabet is actually one of the most reliable corpos in the tech sphere, relatively-speaking, if you analyze their core products throughout the years.

Yes, it does feel like Google retires projects faster than they instantiate them. But that’s by design. The core product (selling advertising on SERPs/YouTube/AdWords/etc) is about as reliable as it gets, and that’s where they get their money.

Obligatory “fuck corporations.”