loobkoob

My interpretation is that it sold poorly, but that among the people who did buy it it's got high retention.

Wait, America didn't even have the pill?!

To be fair, it's easier when it's other people's children you're sacrificing!

Not to excuse his criminal activity, but I don't think it's really a surprise he's not particularly... well-adjusted, given who his mother is. I frankly would have been more shocked if I was told he was a functional, well-adjusted, pleasant human being.

There are definitely technical reasons why saving mid-run is a lot more complicated. With Pacific Drive, right now when you save, it'll save:

• the state of your car - this will likely be done by looking each individual "equipment slot" the car has, assigning them a number, assigning each possible upgrade for that "slot" a number/letter, and storing its damage state (which is probably just a scale of 1-5 or whatever). So the game will store everything about your car in the format off "slot x, upgrade type y, damage z", which can just be three values.
• your quest state. The game won't remember what quests you've done or how you've done them in the way that you remember it - it'll just store that you've completed quest step 14a and that 14b is your active objective.

It makes for a fairly simple, small save file. Being able to save mid-run would add a lot of complexity because it'd need to save a complete map state, including:

• the map layout
• your position in the map
• the enemies and hazards in the map - their positions, states, etc.
• what's happened already in the map
• the loot in the map, and whether you've collected it or not

And so on. Not only does it massively increase the complexity, it would also increase the size of save files a lot and make saving and loading a lot more cumbersome. And that's just a simplified breakdown; there are definitely other factors that can make it much, much more complicated.

There are definitely some games where "easy mode" save systems could be implemented without much changing on a technical level, but I don't think Pacific Drive is one of them.

Lastly, you would do well to cut down on “I” statements. They rarely engage the reader and can feel out of place when writing about a subject as universal and academic as voter apathy.

It also just sounds more authoritative if you state things as fact rather than as opinions that are subject to disagreement, or that perhaps suggest the author doesn't have the full information and is simply interpreting the information that's available to them. And if you write things confidently, too. For instance, if I began this paragraph with "I also think it tends to sound more authoritative..." then it sounds a lot more like I'm chiming into a conversation where I'm not trying to be too domineering. Starting it in a more assertive way (like I did) makes it sound like it's something that's universally acknowledged, like you know what you're talking about, and will change the way people perceive your writing.

The website whose CEO was a moderator on r/jailbait, the community for sexualizing minors?

I thoroughly dislike spez, and I think there are a lot of reasons to be critical of him, but this isn't one of them. He was made a moderator of /r/jailbait at a time when people could be added as moderators without being notified or needing to accept any kind of invitation.

I'd rather see him criticised for the many awful things he's said and done over the years than for some non-reason like that.

Part of me hopes none of them are dumb enough to fall for this. Part of me hopes redditors somehow end up as the majority owners of Reddit and either a) return it to being a good website or b) wreak absolute havoc.

How about using the name for a racing pinnace instead?

I understand that they at least want PvE and PvP to feel the same in terms of gunplay and stuff, but there's no reason why they shouldn't at least balance weapon damage differently in PvP - they wouldn't affect how guns feel, just how they perform.

Frankly, though, there are a lot of weapon balance things apart from damage that should be different between PvE and PvP. Off the top of my head:

• shotguns should have much more range in PvE than PvP. At the range Destiny's PvP is played at, if shotguns have decent range it feels oppressive. But having them so you need to barrel-stuff enemies in PvE makes them a lot less fun and less viable.
• movement speed should vary based on the weapon someone is holding. Take shotguns again: rather than just nerfing their damage or further reducing their effective range, they could nerf the movement speed while someone's holding a shotgun, making it more difficult for them to close gaps but still letting them be rewarded for making it into range.
• headshot multipliers - there's no reason why they can't just further adjust headshot multipliers in PvP to balance guns.

I also feel like PvP generally held back the potential for a lot of more exciting weapon designs from PvE. Look at the Borderlands series as an example; it has some crazy weapon designs that can be a lot of fun and can make the player feel really powerful. Black hole guns, richocheting, homing bullets, cluster explosions, shotgun revolvers, and so on. Obviously Destiny is aiming for a slightly less whacky approach than Borderlands, but it feels like they definitely could have done more mechanically interesting things if they weren't limited by PvP balance.

conducting industrial espionage against the vape store

That's something we should've been doing all along! Now there's a mist opportunity...

I'm not sure I see how they're comparable. Progressivism requires the ability to progress; if we somehow create a completely perfect utopia then there will be no room for progressivism, but otherwise there will always be some way to improve things and progress. In practice, there will always be some way to improve society which means infinite progressivism surely isn't unreasonable?

Infinite growth isn't possible because infinite money doesn't exist, it's as simple as that. And if infinite money did exist, infinite growth wouldn't be possible because everything would already be infinitely large and therefore unable to grow any further...

... but beyond that, it also requires more and more people who can afford whatever the product/service in question is. Which requires either infinite people, infinite money or both. And as the product/service grows and prices likely increase, people will priced out of the market which is the opposite of infinite growth.

It's also worth considering that progressivism is a mindset that is aiming for zero - zero problems, zero inequality, zero bigotry, etc. It's not about pushing for infinite anything, it's about trying to reduce existing issues. And while it'll likely never reach its goal, it's not theoretically or mathematically unreachable. It's much more realistic to attempt to reduce something to zero than it is to increase it to infinity.