Member of a family of progressives: there's no stigma per se in my family about my autism, but sometimes I act different and they don't understand and I can't explain. That means sometimes ppl get angry / annoyed / confused / etc. because of something I can't control, and sometimes they don't understand why as well.
There's never been a solution. I try explaining it but how do you explain what's different between you and another person when it's so native to you and you don't have a comparison.
It's quite ironic when the biggest gaming event calls you out on a practice you are actively participating in and you can't just brush it off as easily.
Very good for this to get exposure. I hope they earn a shit storm for this.
I would usually try to add things to the prompt you'd expect to find in a more casual scenario, like "smartphone" with half weight or something, or "video", or maybe like "Facebook". Just meta information you think attaches to more casual photos. Maybe even add "photo".
Bathing salts, a chair cushion, a calendar, a cooking book, slippers and some chocolate.
It all sounds random but what makes them good presents is that I have reason to believe my family actually wants those things.
That said, I think next time I'll be giving less thought into it because apparently half my family would like to stop with the presents cause they feel like they don't need more shit and also don't like being obligated to buy stuff for other people. Fair enough, but if it's small things I still like gifting stuff.
Btw there is a good argument with net neutrality that the ISP doesn't even have a right to know what services you are streaming. Because that shit can be sold to data brokers. Ofc this kind of argument is always better suited for the EU, but Considering freedom is a big thing for America, I assume the freedom to govern over your own data should be a right regardless.
I mean he had a very weak case iirc but it's very unsatisfying to hear he still got a settlement. Makes sense tho, lawsuits are not worth it 95% of the time.
This makes perfect sense. It's been trained to answer questions to you satisfaction, not truthfully. It was made to prioritize your satisfaction over truth, so it will lie if necessary.
Usually judges don't issue such extreme orders only because of the fact that they don't want to be hammered on appeal.
Now this one is different. I have 2 theories: either the judge thinks the mandatory negative inference is not needed because there's a good chance the jury will do that anyway, or the judge is gonna advise the government to make this a separate case.
It honestly doesn't sound to me like he's just saying one thing and doing the other. He sounds rightly agitated and usually agitated judges will give you a low blow sooner or later if you fuck around.
A game where there's a mundane task like fishing or gardening, but it gets kinda minigame-y and trippy and it branches into maybe some kind of either party game or some other super complex shit. The closest someone has come to this was with Dave the diver.
Tbh this rule hasn't been an issue for me. I cite him for his quote on politics and I still respect a lot of the geniuses who work for him. I really don't share his views, but ppl can be skilled and still suck with what they're saying. I love PCs and the internet, but ppl will never be binary.
I mean ppl usually say that you're only alive when you feel good and bad emotions, and when you're hurting sometimes as well. So I assume making some mistakes, being wrong, feeling things, being exposed to stuff, that's all "living". And sitting in your room following daily patterns a lot, no change in behaviour or routine, that's all the "dying" part.
But at the end of the day it's all subjective and it really depends on your focus in life and your definitions.
"it had movement" :P