There is no horse neck on a centaur though, so not sure why there would be on a giraffetaur. Since they are all imaginary creatures, I suppose anything you want is the right answer.

Agreed. The human part of a centaur doesn’t have any horse features, so why would a giraffe centaur? It would just be a giraffe body with a person torso attached.

LED bulbs for vehicles also usually have at least a heat sink. Some of them even have a fan or other active cooling.

If it makes you feel any better, one of Arrowhead’s community managers specifically said to take the anger to steam. It makes it very public that people are unhappy, and it’s more likely to get Sony to change the policy. So the devs are aware of why this is happening, and it appears that to an extent at least, support the negative reviews

Is the entire game a mode or feature? If it’s not then you can fuck off with that argument that it doesn’t say you don’t need it. If you’re a Sony PR person you’re bad at it. And if you’re not, then you have a weird obsession with siding with shitty corporate behavior.

A gold bullet amongst other gold bullets, in a section that not everyone is going to look at. For a game that is sold globally when PSN is not available globally. This is anti-consumer behavior strictly meant to increase corporate power in the interest of corporate greed. Why defend Sony and their shitty behavior? This doesn’t help gamers. There is no benefit.

Directly from Sony. It may be required for certain modes or features. Not for the entire game to function. Even the EULA that you agree to for the game says nothing about requiring a PSN account.

I still don’t know why you’re so determined to back Sony on their bullshit that is anti-consumer, and is actively harming the gaming community.

Sony specifically says on their own site that it’s not required.

Stream is available almost everywhere outside of US sanctioned countries.

The requirement was a small bullet on the Steam page. And Sony’s own website says a PSN account is not required. So Sony has said both things, and for three months it was not required. There is also no actual functional need for the account. Additionally the game studio has said that the countries where the game was sold, but PSN was not available is an issue they are looking into. I don’t understand why anyone is defending this move from Sony. The users gain no benefit, and there is an obvious negative impact. So maybe stop sucking off corporations?

Largely because the left is less interested in hating and killing everyone around them over irrelevant differences. There are many armed leftists, they just don’t cosplay government overthrow or post apocalyptic warlord on a regular basis.

Also, have you ever tried to organize anarchists?

If it was a real requirement they should have geo restricted the sale to countries that are allowed to make PSN accounts. Instead they bait and switched players who have been playing past the normal refund window, and now will have an unplayable game. Also the PSN account has nothing to do with fixing crossplay. Other games have functional crossplay without it. And Sony themselves say on their own website that PSN is not required to play Sony games on PC.

Did you miss the tired and overworked comment? Feeling exhausted and burned out doesn’t inspire most people to spend a large amount of time and effort learning something new.

Still worth it to try. Eventually maybe it will get some attention focused where it needs to be.

To add to that, if a church is lobbying or otherwise involved in the political process, they can be reported and lose their tax exempt status.

The balance has no reason to add up to 50. So there is no extra anything. If you kept spending 1 each row, and then summed the balance at the end, it would be massively higher than the 50 you started with.

Would be a shame if GTA 6 got deleted…

Don’t even need to do an investigation. If you read Mozilla’s auto manufacturer privacy report, auto makers openly admit to spying on everyone to a repulsive degree. And then sell all that info to anyone they want with no way to opt out, well other than buying an older car without any connectivity.

I’m not disagreeing about them being a combatant. I’m disagreeing that being a combatant gives the military carte blanche authority to kill you. Like I said, the rules of engagement can be very specific about how, when, where, and with who you are legally allowed to engage. Self defense is the only universal time the US military is allowed to use lethal force. Outside of that you follow the restrictions and force escalations parameters outlined in the ROE.

That’s not actually true. ROE gets much more specific than that. The US holds that members of the military always retain the right to self defense, but that means that there are times you can’t fire until someone fires on you. So a weapon doesn’t default to legally allowed to shoot. And frequently there are rules about how you escalate force to include verbal warnings given in the local language.