Wasn't it dragon age 2 where the level design got super repetitive though? It felt like they kept reusing the same exact level design in ways that didn't really make sense.

The reality is: if you don't understand why providing "white" scholarships is very different from providing "people of color" scholarships, then you don't have a full understanding of how Racism manifests in America. This is a fundamental thing you will need to work to better understand before a discussion of this topic can be useful.

Nevertheless, you are correct that not every white person in America take advantage of generational wealth, but this is besides the point. The fact is Black Americans have been in this country for 400 years and the community is still disproportionately impoverished, whereas there are a lot of European/Asian immigrants who have been here for much less time and they are much better off. You kind of make this observation in your response, but missed the implications it has on how Racism rewards certain demographics.

Project Zomboid. Feels like a Sims game with zombie and great survival elements. Arguably, the best zombie survival game to hit the market. Supports split screen couch co-op.

The smartphone is a different beast. Hardware and software companies spent millions of dollars of R&D to create the most psychologically addicting and attention demanding device as possible.

Is it possible that there is a better a solution to the issues of Capitalism which doesn't involve the liquidation of entire groups of people?

Being a person who have visited communist meetings, this is my biggest gripe with the ideology. Yes, capitalism today has become corrupted, perhaps even beyond repair. But, I refuse to believe that the only solution is to round up and kill the capitalist bosses in order to bring back power to the working class. At this point, we would be dehumanizing an entire group of people which wouldn't make us much better than what the far-right does.

To be fair to Clinton, she did do some pain. Remember when she called many of the people who supported Trump, "deplorables". This riled up America as if she was going too far with describing them this way. Here we are almost a decade later, and we are starting to realize that she was right.

The political landscape is far different now than it was when it was Hilary vs. Trump. Trump has done his four years, and we have now seen the damage he and his constituents have done. We see now that the republican party watched Handmaid's Tale and agreed with the fictional government in that story. There is no hiding how deplorable some of these folks are especially with the publishing of Project 2025.

Folks, we do understand that when Kamala was a senator, her vote on topics were statistically aligned with Bernie Sanders.

While a senator, Kamala's votes aligned almost 100% with protecting the environment (according to the League of Conservation voters.

She agreed with Bernie Sanders "College for all" act which would fund tuition for lower income students looking to go to a public university.

She co-sponsered a bill to ban assault rifles, high capacity magazines, and to limit gunstores advertising campaigns.

She backed the "Medicare for all" bill sponsored by Bernie Sanders, which would have established a government funded Healthcare system which would provide health insurance to all Americans and remove private health insurance.

In terms of immigration, she wanted to put ICE under a microscope and reexamine their practices, she supports DACA, opposes a border wall, and wants to investigate a means to alleviate illegal immigration by attacking the problems in central and South America which is causing these folks to try to run to the USA.

At the end of the day, I would not be surprised if Biden was influenced by her ideas, because if you look at what he has done in his four year term, he has moved his political needle more left.

Sauce: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-does-kamala-harris-believe-where-the-candidate-stands-on-9-issues

Have you tried earnestly starting the discussion, or are you expecting others to start the conversation on your behalf? 🙃

The Japanese were attempting to negotiate surrender with the "neutral" USSR prior to the nuclear bombs. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan The US wanted an unconditional surrender which included the destruction of the Japanese emperor, who at the time, was the head of the Japanese religion. To put this into perspective, consider the United States request similar to requesting the destruction of the Pope within the Vatican. Because of this, the Japanese were seeking better terms of surrender which did not involved the removal of their religious leader. What the Japanese did not know at the time was the USSR was not a neutral party, and they were secretly mobilizing their forces on mainland Asia due to an agreement Stalin made with FDR prior to the US entering the war in Europe.

The reality is, once Japan learned that the USSR was not neutral and they were going to be fighting the US and the USSR in a two front war, this is when the emperor forced Japan to surrender.

To put things into perspective, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were sadly, just another two cities leveled by the US. The US were performing night carpet bombing on Japanese cities as soon as 1944. Many of these raids leveled several square km of urban areas. https://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=217. This is why people argue that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were probably not the catalyst to Japan's surrender because the US have been leveling Japanese cities, killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese citizens, long before the two nuclear bombs were dropped. None of these raids caused Japan to surrender before.

Reading your links, the correction you made seems semantically insignificant. Yumi is the word for "bow" in Japanese and longbows describe bows that are long. Longbows are not unique to the English, and there are a lot of bows that can be described as longbows. So my point is, if samurais used yumis that are long (which some did) then saying they used longbows is not incorrect. Nevertheless, thank you for letting us know what the Japanese called their bows, it was educational.

Describing someone using their race when it is a clear way to discern them from a crowd of people is not racist; but describing someone by their race when it's entirely irrelevant is likely driven by racism.

The kid being "black" in the statement adds nothing to the information. He could have easily said "I saw a large man at the door and I got scared" and it would not have been any different, since it isn't like he is trying discern the kid from a crowd. "Black" is being used to justify his fear of the person, and this is inherently racist.

The big bang (if it is still a valid theory) would have been unlike any explosion you have ever witnessed. The big bang was not an explosion of only matter, since time and space were both created during this event as well.