Maybe I'm not doing the best at explaining myself, but my intent was for my comment to say much the same as yours (which I totally agree with). I was just trying to say that I didn't hear many people who thought Ukraine could actually win a war against Russia through fighting. There was definitely hope that Russia would have a regime change due to the pressure and that would put an end to the war, but that outcome seems more like Russia just ending fighting rather than Ukraine winning. I suppose my comment was moreso just arguing semantics on the word "win" in terms of this conflict, which is ultimately a bit pointless.
Maybe I'm wrong here, but I think most people never thought Ukraine would win the war outright. Personally, I've never heard anyone say that they thought Ukraine would push Russia out entirely and the war would end. Even if Ukraine did secure all of its land, Russia would almost certainly continue fighting along the border to prevent it from joining any alliance like NATO. It seemed the best anyone hoped for is that there would be enough pressure applied to Russia that something changed within where they gave up on the war.
The 'completely out of service' part is a quote from a relevant person (not the author), and it seems publications frequently try to use quotes in their titles, which could explain the phrasing. Based on the article, it could also be an intentional choice. It sounds like the hospital is still functioning in regards to some staff and patients are inside the hospital (and possibly can't leave), but it is completely out of service in the sense that the staff can't actually take care of the patients or accept new ones.
Funnily enough, I felt the opposite. 2016 seemed more grounded and serious to me while still having some laughs and eye rolls, while Eternal had a lot more arcadey stuff where it felt like the devs either didn't know how to integrate it more seamlessly into the universe or were just doing whatever they thought would be cool rather than what would serve a good story. I think I would have been alright with either version of Doom, but I feel like there is a disconnect between the two newest entries that is just a bit harder to look over.
When I worked IT, I went to a local fire station and said I was there to update their computers. The person I talked to didn't seem to know that this was scheduled, but they led me to their office with the computers and showed me how to log on. I'm pretty sure they just assumed I was telling the truth because I spoke confidently and was wearing a polo, but I could have literally been anyone.
On one hand, I agree that the story could and should contain more info about the positives of the club to really show people what it's like. I've read similar articles about other school districts that have the club, and they often give few details about the actual club, which is frustrating. On the other hand, I understand why the author chose to focus on what they did. If this club was established and everyone was cool with it, it likely wouldn't receive an article in a national publication because that's not very noteworthy. The news story in this case isn't about the club being formed; it's about the backlash to the club being formed, and that's what they're going to focus on. I'm not saying it should be that way (I like having a more complete picture of what's going on), but focusing on one aspect of a story and ignoring others is often how it appears to be when reading news.
When I first got my Deck, I was playing a lot on it. I then kinda transitioned back into PC gaming for a while and that continued into the beginning of 2023. However, I started gaming a lot more on the Deck in the past few months. I've mostly been working through some of the indie or older games that are in my backlog. Right now, I only really play on PC when I am playing my primary multiplayer games that don't run (or run poorly) on the Deck.
I'm not trying to say that anyone buying the game is going to have a large impact or that Rowling herself has a large impact. I was just giving an explanation of why some people may feel like they shouldn't support the game financially. Some people feel uncomfortable buying something if they know that their money, no matter how little, is ultimately going towards something they disagree with.
Some people have harder times separating an author from their work. In this particular case, while it is true that Rowling likely did not have much to do with the actual product, it also doesn't help that she makes money off the game and donates said money to people and organizations that people disagree with.
This is awesome of you to do this! I have quite a few backlog games and want other people to have a chance to grab stuff they would really be into, so I would be interested in A Short Hike and/or SUPERHOT only if it gets close to the Dec 31 deadline and nobody has claimed them. Whether I get any games or not, thanks for doing this! Happy holidays and new year!
That's exactly how I was taught Java styling in college. Idk if it was official styling or just professor preference though.