But to be 'disappointed' that a game you didn't like is selling well is nonsense.
I'm not disappointed because it's just not my cup of tea, that would be nonsense. I actually want to play the game, but won't because of the state it's in.
It's disappointing that it sold so well because it shows that people don't care about shitty business practices.
The UK has some of the worst housing issues in Europe, yet the amount of houses (dwellings) per person has slightly increased since 2001
21,210,000÷59,113,0000=0.35 Houses per person in 2001
24,930,000÷67,350,695=0.37 Houses per person in 2021
Yet rents and house prices have absolutely skyrocketed. Supply exceeds demand, it's just greed, long term empty investment properties and government inaction.
Also I'm fairly sure in chess that there's open and women's leagues. I can't find anything mentioning a men's only league.
I thought the women's league was mostly around to try to encourage women into a male dominated sport?
The above post makes it sound historical, and the only/main reason for women's leagues. I have no doubt in my mind there are select modern examples of salty boys being beaten by women's teams, but that's different from the origin of women's leagues being that men were salty about being beaten all the time
Sorry to doubt you, but do you have a source for this? I can only find paywalled articles and the Wikipedia article doesn't have anything to back this up
"As someone without enough knowledge to form a correct opinion, here's my opinion. No, I will not back down when someone more informed presents new information."
Fair, in this example Bill Gates isn't exactly the best one to pick. And the clarification on the lobbying rules is definitely a valuable bit of information, so thank you for adding that.
I was more trying to point out that the original comment wasn't saying that the tax break "made money". It's all about shuffling it around to avoid taxes.
At the end of the day, it allows Bill Gates (or other billionaires) to spend otherwise taxable income on whatever they deem important. Whether or not you agree with how they're spending their money is irrelevant
Bill Gates pays less taxes as he donates to a charity
Bill Gates runs that charity
Bill Gates then gets to decide how that charity spends his donated money
This then means that he can use what should have been tax to:
Pay himself with the charities money, as he is an employee of the charity
Lobby politicians using the charity's money
Otherwise direct the charity to work in his best interests
Which part are you disagreeing with? I guess he doesn't "make money" in the strictest sense, but it sure seems like he's exploiting the system to keep more of it
The world is increasingly more reliant on technology though. When reading/writing was becoming more essential I'm sure many people had the same opinion. What works for one generation won't necessarily work for the next, the world changes.
I do agree that there should be limits though, a lot of smartphone apps/games are designed in part by psychologists to deliberately exploit young minds that don't have defenses against them yet
There is something to be said about voting with your wallet and boycotting people who actively donate to anti-lgbt organisations.
But christ was that particular boycott super fucking obnoxious.
I thought the game was kinda mid. The first part in Hogwarts was amazing, the rest of the game turned into the standard open world grind a bit too quickly for me.
I'm glad you enjoyed it, and I can see how you did 😁
The TV itself is overlaying ads onto content supplied via HDMI. This includes BluRay players and Nvidia Shields.
I don't think there was anything mentioning content detection of BluRays to stop playing the ads