Uruanna

I don't even know what Mastodon looks like and I don't know who the guy is, but I'm just assuming he's lying because it sounds like the usual "crazy pronoun libs" dog whistle.

Exactly, they announced earlier this year that they were working on reviving a bunch of licences, including Crazy Taxi, Jet Set Radio, Shinobi, Golden Axe, Streets of Rage, and hinting at a longer list. We don't know yet eactly how many titles that includes, and which of them will get remakes, remasters, or brand new games, but it was hinting brand new. Early dev footage was leaked at some point for Crazy Taxi and Shinobi.

Shadow of Mordor/war scratch the same itsch as assassin's creed

??? It's the first time I'm hearing Shadow of Mordor allows you to run around famous places in ultra popular historical periods.

Alpha 3 on Playstation made you work a bit on the tour mode to unlock Guile, Evil Ryu, Shin Akuma (raise a character to level xyz). Shin Bison might also have only been selectable after beating him somewhere.

the Alpha/Zero and EX series did that (Alpha 3 on PSX made you work a little bit to unlock the PSX exclusive characters/forms), then there was also CvS and some of the Marvel games, but that was mixed in with a point and shop system I think.

I can't believe we haven't learned anything since "it's about ethics in games journalism". "It's about monetization in AAA games" now, apparently.

I totally agree that there has been a hate campaign about DEI right-wing complains, but there's two subjects that came to head at the same time here because it was on the same big title:

Star Wars Outlaw and AC Shadows had the same business model, Star Wars showed that it failed, and Ubisoft got spooked and said they'd have another look at the monetization model for AC. People did get pissed at both games when their business models with passes and editions everywhere were revealed.

It's just that AC also had at the same time the matter of racist and misogynist hate because of the protagonists. I don't think this happened on Star Wars, and the fact that it failed too shows that it isn't the only complain people are having against Ubisoft.

Apparently the monetization guy is stepping on the minority hate campaign subject, he's the one conflating the two problems here just because his job title. We shouldn't forget that Ubisoft did pull an infuriating and deplorable stunt with that monetization model.

Does the article say the headline is wrong? Or does it say conspiracy theorists listen to facts because it relies on a handful of willing participants who changed their mind when seeing facts and reports? Because that's not the crux of the crazy conspiracy theorists.

Try again when the chatbot talked to the likes of Graham Hancock or the hardcore MAGA death cult. Facts don't matter.

Rand pointed out that many conspiracy theorists actually want to talk about their beliefs. "The problem is that other people don't want to talk to them about it,"

Just look at this guy who straight up pretends that no one tried to talk to them before.

It does talk about gish gallop at the very end, and claims that the chatbot can keep presenting arguments - but doesn't actually say that it has worked.

Mais l'alliance avec l'extrême droite, tout va bien ?

Sans avoir eux-mêmes la majorité, ils doivent bien faire des concessions soit à l'extrême droite, soit à la gauche, et on voit bien avec quelle facilité ils font leur choix (au grand dam de leur corps défendant !) et la confiance qu'ils ont que le RN jouera le jeu.

Le désistement en faveur de la gauche pour faire barrage républicain, ça n'aura pas duré.

Il est contre l'augmentation smic, la baisse de l'âge de retraite, tout ça, parce que vous comprenez, il y aura moins d'augmentations et d'embauches. À côté il reconnaît être dans la pire période en termes de dépôts de bilans etc.

Donc moins d'augmentation et d'embauches comparé à quoi en fait ? Quelle est la situation qu'il imagine donner plus d'augmentations et d'embauches alors même que la politique actuelle cale ? Ou alors il prétend que c'est la gauche qui a créé la situation actuelle ?

There's giving a different importance to something that is, in fact, present in the art piece because it touches you more importantly than it did the author, and then there's making shit up whole cloth. But like I said, the words you chose, and also the things you chose to defend, say more about you than the art

You can also replace woke with another word and it is indeed true that this hypothetical game has a message of female empowerment by having a strong female lead yes. Fallout can have an anti-capitalist message whether you're pro or anti capitalist yourself and use your own word of choice to denigrate or praise the message. The word you chose says more about you than the message.

What was your point already?

"La stabilité" voulue par le président, c'est "la capacité pour un gouvernement à ne pas tomber à la première motion de censure déposée", insiste-t-on à l'Élysée.

La stabilité pour ne pas tomber à la première motion de censure quand le parti présidentiel a pas de majorité absolue ? Elle est assurée quand le président nomme un premier ministre hors de son parti et dit à son parti de ne pas voter contre son choix. Rien de plus évident.

Par exemple si il choisi à l'extrême droite et dit à son parti de se taire, aucune motion de censure ne passera, parce que son camp + le RN font plus de 50%. C'est super simple et c'est comme ça que c'est censé marcher quand il y a pas de majorité. Aucune justification à prétendre que c'est pas stable.

Le calcul est identique s'il choisi à gauche, car il a toujours la majorité. Sauf que ça n'arrivera pas, il sait qu'il peut dire à son parti de ne pas voter contre et que ça suffira, mais il le fera pas. Il préfère prétendre que la gauche est instable.

S'il choisi dans son camp parmi les ex PS en prétendant que le PS acceptera, il s'en fout parce que le RN ne soutiendra pas de motion de censure donc ça passera même sans la gauche. Donc on sait déjà ce qu'il entend par stabilité même s'il peut la créer comme il veut sa stabilité.

Le seul risque qu'il court c'est de convaincre le RN de ne rien faire. Si le RN dit non, il sera forcé de prendre à gauche (et encore, en supposant qu'il ne vire pas RN), mais le RN ne dira pas non.