Since you read it, and don’t reference them addressing the fact pattern I mentioned, I’m not sure reading it would be worth my time. I’d love to be convinced, however, if you can answer one question.

How did she categorize a movement as “non-violent” or not?

It shouldn’t be. Asserting that “no non-violent protests have failed” ignores an obvious null hypothesis.

Tyrannical regimes attack non-violent protests that get large enough, and then call said movements “violent” to justify what the state did to them.

Your experience is far from universal. Working with actual code files, visual studio works very good.

Mix in XAML blazor, however…

(Note that both file formats are abstractions from which C# classes are.generated…)

If you think either Apple or Microsoft wouldn’t do that,.you’ve likely too young to know about “hackingtosh” computers or too nerdy to have read the windows 11 coverage.

That neither company would do it without a profit motive is a good argument to ban both from running “app stores”.

Just based on the MCU portrayal:

Barnes was a WW2 soldier who was captured and tortured as a POW, only to be saved by his now-buff 95-lbs weakling best friend. He fought alongside Rogers for an unspecified number of months, until he was thrown from a train.

After that, he was captured by the same mad scientist and brainwashed into a remorseless killing machine. His recovery from being so was long, and involved first being on the run, then a superhero civil war, and then some years as a guest of a mythical African kingdom.

Then endgame happened, and the whole darn world had one of two traumatic shocks. Barnes had some lingering trauma afterwards, but can be seen working through it in Falcon and Winter Soldier.

It’s been a few years, but not once did they show him screaming at hydra in Russian.

In Thunderbolts, Barnes is literally the only team member to have actually come to terms with the terrible things he did. (Followed closely by Red Guardian). Whatever trauma he did experience was almost certainly something he had already processed.

It’s fairly in-character for Bucky’s worst trauma NOT being his time as the Winter Soldier.

Other than that, you’re spot on.

No apologies necessary*. I certainly wasn’t trying to offend, just be accurate in model setting.

A more accurate umbrella term for “affair tolerant monogamy” would probably be “non-monogamous”, with the dividing line between that and “polyamory” being exactly what you said : all persons in the relationship cluster knowing the stances of all other participants.

Accurate and non-offensive terminology can be hard.

It does circle us back to OP, though. The answer to “what happens when one couple breaks up in a polucule” is a loud and emphatic that depends on what type of polucule you’re in.

(*: no apologies needed from you. To the extent that I caused you any distress I sincerely apologize. Causing pain was not at all my intent.)

While this is certainly a valid form of romance, it’s more accurately described as “non-exclusive simultaneous relationships” than a single “polyamorous relationship”.

Some people really do live in multi-partner committed households, but those seem most often to be dominated by a single person, such as fringe Mormon polygamy. And the most common form of "polyamory’ is probably “affair-tolerant monogamy.”

It’s a big complicated world, and variations of how humans with form intimate relationships fills all possibilities when there is no enforced legal prohibition. (And,.sometimes, even then.)

Update: this is, in fact, hilarious.

If it keeps up my smartwatch may either cure my tinitus or else inflict it upon all those nearby.

That’s… A bold idea which may or may not be hilarious.

If I slam the button at the end do two more random notifications go out?

I would guess that it’s actually a jargonification of extant words.

Merriam Webster includes a neat etymology section on the definitions I linked, that traces both words to the Renaissance (ish). The entry for “maze” does note an alternate definition as a neurological test with at least one dead end, but (1) that doesn’t match the claim OP’s article headline makes and (2) scientific jargon is not common English.

(If jargon WERE common English, we’d have an entirely different argument about tomatoes being fruits or vegetables.)

Ceremony can be a PITA,.no argument here.

But I would be shocked if Nintendo made a digital “eject” erase anything on the local console.

Fort Liberty had its name changed back to Fort Bragg by racists.

Please don’t spread racist propaganda or take their

This isn’t true. Go look up the definition for either word, and it doesn’t comport with the usage rules claimed.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/labyrinth

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/maze

If you do want to draw a sharp distinction in modern usage, you could posit that a labyrinth is a type of maze that was made intentionally and can be walked through.

As I understand it, switch 1 digital games are console-bound, but you can migrate your whole console to a new device (such as if your switch breaks.). This was terrible and unfriendly, and why almost all of my family’s switch games are physical.

I doubt “share once and let everyone play but the owner” was an intentional promise from Nintendo, but I’d have no trouble believing a tale about their DRM checks leaving open a hole like that.

If we still need to buy one copy of a gamer per simultaneous player,.then the rest of the differences are just ceremony.

Nothing indicates that moving a Nintendo digital card requires uninstalling the game locally. It just, like steam, does a DRM check to see if it’s being played elsewhere.

Steam sells non-transferable lifetime licenses to each game you “buy”, that let you play it on one PC at a time but never transfer it to anyone else, even as part of an inheritance after your death.

If you have a family there is a “sharing” plan which allows you to let family members also play some of the games in your library, but not at the same time.

Nintendo is imposing a bit more ceremony if you want to share digital games each time you share them, but the essential “one device at a time” nature is the same that steam imposes.

Nintendo made a huge deal about virtual game cards, saving us from exactly what you’re afraid of.

Not as good as what Sony and Microsoft do, where we can essentially install our whole library on every console we have, but it’s about as good as what Steam does.

Plus they’re bringing back a “game share” like feature, so some multiplayer games should be playable in a local family with only one purchase.

There is a mythical “Sony fan” customer who pays extra for their video game consoles, and justified that by believing it comes with a right to be special and awesome and play games no one else is allowed to.

It’s a pantomine of a Nintendo fan, who pays for an underpowered console for first-party games that use unique controllers. None of whom would ever complain if their games were sold on PC so long as they could bring the controller over.

AFAIK, the only real people who want exclusives on PlayStation are Sony employees and shareholders.

Pascal’s wager is a defense of theism in general, not a specific flavor of theism. If you accept that there is a God, any God, then you can reason and argue about which way to worship her is correct.

If you do not believe that God exists, however, then the particularities of which godhead you worship are irrelevant trivia.

If God or Brahman or Kamisama exist, then they are aware of the imperfect worship flavors that they receive and have appropriate accommodations included, if they are worthy of worship at all. (Please note that Zeus is not included in this list, because that guy’s just a rapist bastard.)