And neither of us will be the first person proven wrong on our respective points.
charonn0
joined 2 years ago
You're hardly the first person to think they can kill their way to Utopia. It has never worked.
That's from FO4. I don't think it appeared in any other game.
Normalizing political violence will inevitably, and possibly literally, blow up in your own face.
There's a quest where you find a ghoul child locked in a refrigerator on the side of the road (it's implied he's been in there since the war). You have the option of selling him to a named member of the gunners.
Not only is it normalized, but it's being weaponized. See, for example, the recent XZ backdoor which was equal parts hacking and a psi-op against the maintainer.
“He would say things similar to that on occasions to blow off steam. But I wouldn’t take them literally every time he did it,” Mr Barr said, adding: “At the end of the day, it wouldn’t be carried out and you could talk sense into him.”
So either we're counting on people to refuse the president's orders, or we're hoping the Trump is more mature than he lets on?
How about not electing people who would even entertain such an idea in the first place?
I haven't been having any major problems except for occasional framerate stuttering, but then I don't use that many mods.
My only real complaint is that there's really no new story content, it's just a couple of new locations (Enclave checkpoints like FO3) some new armor and weapon types, and a handful of quests that are pretty much radiant quests with a coat of Enclave paint. Considering the download was like 10GB I was expecting more. If Google is telling me the truth, that's bigger than all the other DLC combined.
So change parties?
When in doubt, shut up.
The best way to make money in Vegas is to sell light bulbs.
Not exactly the same problem. In the same way that gun control doesn't address the problem of hostile foreign militaries. Yes, both involve guns, but the laws and policies that address one are inapplicable and inappropriate to the other.
The law in question addresses the problem of foreign adversaries having easy access to manipulate US public opinion. The law you suggest addresses the problem of advertisers having that access. Both are serious concerns, both need to be addressed, but they are not the same problem and the solutions are markedly different.
Pizza and chocolate milk?
I mean I like them both, but together?