Honestly that's a big minus for me. If they actually have to "buy" the champ you can be reasonably sure that they put some time in learning that champ to begin with.
It's still hit and miss seeing as you can still buy champs with riot points, but it at least gives you something to get insight into the other players in your game. Some bit of quality control.
I mean it does make sense if you keep in mind that we traded having to hunt and forage for a system that let's you buy these things indirectly with currency.
You just need to leave out the whole thing of empathy and morality and reduce the whole system to a exchange of goods and services for money.
I actually think that boredom wouldn't be that much of an issue though, most of your days will be filled with scavenging, foraging and in a later stage farming.
I skimmed the video (this should've been an article to be honest) and it can be that I missed the part, but is WiFi 7 more stable than earlier versions? Seeing as that was the whole point of WiFi 7 as far as I know.
The point was quite clear, I'm not going to feed it to you like a baby bird and I'm not going to waste more time on that, just saying "nu uh explain yourself" doesn't change anything on that front.
And it's not absurd to expect people to actually post content instead of just dumping their latest fancy somewhere. We got bots that can do the same.
A post with real content like a summary or even a decent title with a synopsis are a sign for me that the content is worth consuming, instead of just more noise that dilutes existing content actually worth reading.
I mean you can simply read the article you yourself posted to see what I mean.
How much more concrete than "there isn't much depth to any of the articles content" do you want me to be?
Instead of digging your heels in, stop with the article link-dumping.
The latter is not just criticism on you but all the other "supposed" content sharers. If you can't even be bothered to post a short summary of the content you post, why would I bother with clicking on it.
Well alright, I might have worded my comment a bit wrong in regard of the relation the title has with the article content.
What I actually mean to say is that there is a lot of talk about what European philosophers supposedly think about non-europeans and that the examples of these European philosophies are non-existent in the article.
Sure there are a few name drops, but there is no actual depth behind any of the words in the article. No actual reasoning on why Europeans are supposedly morally bankrupt except for the rather strange part in the beginning where a hypothetical coalition of Iran and allies would be stopped by the western allies if they did the same thing as the Israeli are doing now in gaza.
And I can't help but think; if they are really that outraged by what's going on in gaza, why don't they do anything about it like the hypothetical West would have?
He's good son, real good! Maybe even the best.