If someone came into my home and started making derogatory racist remarks about me, I’d say that response would be entirely appropriate.

I dunno if it even needs to be difficult; even a bit tactical would change the nature of the thing. As it is the mobs in these things tend to be mindless converging waves; what if they set up set pieces, ran for help, dived for cover, used supporting fire etc etc?

Also perhaps overambitious, but what if the difference between low and high level enemies wasn’t their HP or damage, but how tricky and organised they were? What if leveling up didn’t make number get big, but instead gave you more options in a fight?

Ah, perhaps a slight miscommunication.

though I do enjoy traditional roguelikes, I’m not looking at the stakes or the intensity, but rather the kind of itch that’s being scratched in diabolikes, and it feels a lot more completionist/procedural in nature than it does adversarial.

Both are good, but dressing one up as the other can lead to an underlying sense of disappointment.

deleted by creator

There is no planet B.

Earth is the only place that could sustain human life.

We have not found any other bodies with the basic composition, atmosphere or temperature to have even the remote potential for sustaining life, even with the most extravagantly optimistic technology and unlimited resources to apply it.

Nix, nada, no dice.

We are not getting off this rock - and if we fuck it up, we’re done.

Entirely context dependent.

Who’s cooking tonight? Me, and if it’s sandwiches, salad, etc - still counts.

No cooking in the room. Combining sliced bread with sliced cheese out of the bag - doesn’t count.

Anyone who pushes jira is a waste of fucking carbon, and I hope they never find happiness.

If you want twenty minutes of rage-filled ranting, ask me about vscode-server sometime.

Nonsense. Where do you think lawyers come from?

Why do you only frame the issue in terms of the voters’ responsibilities, and never in terms of the candidate’s responsibilities?

Why aren’t the politicians the ones who need to make hard choices? Why can’t they get wedged on the issues for once?

That’s not the question.

The question should be what choice does Harris have, except to stop Israel?

If (as I strongly agree) trump is the worst human on the planet who will cause irreparable damage to :gestures wildly: fucking everything, then why doesn’t his opponent have the responsibility to do whatever the hell it takes, within the law to keep him out of power?

Especially as in this instance his opponent is currently sworn to be responsible for the ongoing welfare of the nation.

Imagine being so fucking intent on enabling genocide half a planet away that you’d rather let your own country fall into the hands of Camacho Harkonnen rather than attract progressive voters.

Why is it always ‘voters need to lower their standards’, and never ‘candidates need to be decent human beings’?

Mayonnaise-filled inflatable dolphin?

That’s a phrase I’ve not heard in a long, long time.

Two things I need to ask:

• What inspired this question, exactly, and
• Can I have some, please?

Congratulations you just invented magenta

Have they tried fucking off?

ok but seriously who named a mosquito-borne virus eee?

If you actually fill the drive with zeroes, the chances of anyone getting anything back are somewhere between fuck and all.

Old MFM drives (tech likely as old as your parents) had a theoretical exploit for recovering erased data.

With modern tech, that loophole was firmly closed; even state-level actors would be shit outta luck.

A file comes in two parts: the actual blocks of data that hold the file itself, and a directory entry with the name of the file, and the location of the first block.

When you delete a file, it only scrubs out the directory entry, and re-lists the data blocks as available for use.

What do you get when you cross Kim Jong Un and Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg?