Progressive on social issues, regressive/conservative on a lot of economic issues. Neoliberalism is back 19th century style.

They will just repeat what Trump said with a shit-eating grin. There is no original thought going on there.

Define ethically sourced.

I guess it boils down to what you consider worst. Gangs, or a tyrannical government who disappear people without due process. It is like releasing killer monkeys to take care of your radioactive crocodile problem.

Have you heard about asswipes

Lack of important features, no asset store, not as mature (more bugs), no native console support, no low-level rendering access, no texture streaming, and on and on.

Spot-on, this would be my bet too.

It is classic internet outrage complely disconnected from what smaller game devs have to go through. Don’t get in the way of a good internet outrage as a legit, actual gamedev who knows why this is damn near impossible, or you’ll get downvoted.

The whole argument of leaving Unity hinge on the fact that Godot is a close replacement, it is not.

Godot is fine for solo/very small indies and people trying to learn gamedev, but it is not ready quite yet. Most devs still are stuck using proprietary engines.

“Moral enough”, let’s not pretend they’re not thirsting for their own genocide, just read their catchphrase “God Is the Greatest, Death to America, Death to Israel, A Curse Upon the Jews, Victory to Islam”".

Two wrongs does not make a right.

There is no intellectual fight going on, they just say whatever needs to be true to justify their shitty action at any given moment. They know they’re full of shit, they don’t care.

Thanksfully he has also been reported to be grossly incompetent and inept so this might have saved us.

Context menu key is kinda essential for navigating without a mouse. I don’t use it all that often but I am very glad it is there.

Yes absolutely. It will be up to the Court to decide.

Style over substance, and a ugly style at that. Of course lots of people are gonna love it and say it is the best thing ever.

Yep! It is kind of funny too because petty insults is all they have, but they seem extremely sensible to them themselves. Trump has a nickname for virtually everyone, and they think it’s the best thing ever, but point out that he’s an insecure man wearing ungodly amount of makeup and they immediately get weirdly offended by it. “OrAnGe MaN bAd”. The funny thing is, as Trump would say, there is a lot of subject matter with his overall presentation, ironically.

A crepe is like 100 calories and you can pour like 5 in less than 10 minutes. But anyway, to reach their own. personally I hate chopping stuff even if it takes 1 minute.

It is funny because it is the opposite actually. Former senates and presidents actually clashed over foreign policies, it is only in recent times that presidents were more or less left to decide. So, I guess there is a bit of projection going on here.

Congress has the power to declare war. The president being commander-in-chief does not mean he can do whatever he please with the U.S army as its own personal force. The president is meant to follow the constitution, even as commander. If the president ignores treaties and war declarations, I would argue the president is the one violating the separation of powers, and not congress by hypothetically enforcing the powers given to them by the constitution. By this logic, whoever controller the army should have absolute power, being commander-in-chief and all. I like how you slipped past my initial post by completely ignoring that the constitution grants congress influence over foreign policies by citing the president control over the armed forces as this unalienable right. Why have treaties then? Why have declaration of war? I think you might be slightly biased in your argument. The president was never the sole responsible for foreign policies, even though the executive branch had a lot of influence over those in recent times.

Article II section 2 of the constitution requires approval from the senate to ratify treaties, which is then up to the president to ratify and implement. Both branches of the government are supposed to work together to establish foreign policies, this is part of the check and balances. If you have sources interpreting article II section 2 differently I’d be curious to see.