A survival horror about dinosaurs can't exist because an action game that includes fantasy dinosaur-like creatures does?

That sounds like saying you wouldn't have space for Resident Evil because of Fallout, and those arguably have more overlap than Dino Crisis and Monster Hunter in their settings.

I mean I could be wrong, I haven't played Dino Crisis (though I intend to at some point), but from what I know and have heard it's not that close to Monster Hunter. People have been looking for AAA Dino horror-type stuff for ages. They wouldn't bring up Dino Crisis instead of Monster Hunter in those discussions if they filled the same niche.

The moral low ground? Willingness to pay for exclusivity, allowing crypto games, that sort of stuff?

People opening it once a week sometimes to get a free game?

Yeah, I don't see what Randy is on about, but that guy says a lot of bullshit.

Would've been nice if they added the little tidbit in the headline that said Gaza posts were specifically denying what is happening in Gaza is genocide.

John Mason stripped of SNP party whip after 'unacceptable' posts claiming events in Gaza 'not genocide'

Maybe remove the unacceptable quote if that's too long. And suddenly some might not go in with the idea that maybe it was because he made a pro-Palestine post.

I mean if you know John Mason you probably wouldn't assume that, but I think it's healthier for journalists to presume you don't know all the MPs and MSPs.

*: edited to add that the info should've been added in the headline

I've also said this before and I'll say it again: names of suspects and even convicted criminals should not be shared unless necessary*. That just makes no sense for rehabilitation as it opens people up for judgement in a court of opinion. Justice is the job of the justice systems and should not generally involve the wider public.

Could there be issues with the judgement or other events where the only way to achieve justice is via the press? Sure, probably, but I don't think the default should be that if I google the name of someone I can find if they or someone with a similar name (and god forbid, appearance) were involved in a crime.

*: unless necessary here can cover cases like trying to find an individual on the run, or when their previous crime is meant to exclude them from specific lines of work, although even that should be on a need-to-know basis imo, not public info.

Labour, LibDem, Green together also would have a majority, and hopefully people would vote tactically for Labour if all the right wing votes would go to one party as well, though you never know. So I'm not sure I agree with that part of the analysis.

Otherwise: yeah, it's at least as, probably more, accurate to say Tories lost, as it is to say Labour won.

By the way the votes fell, 38% seem to have voted Tory or Reform. Ignoring how people would vote differently if the system were to change, that to me implies proportional voting would still see the right wing lose. Not nearly as much as they did now, but perhaps more securely.

I just hope Labour will think of this similarly and actually do something to make sure we get a system where that 38% doesn't overcome the rest and leads to a Tory or even Reform government.

See the other reply about why the EU can't act. I'd just like to add context on the "why were they let in" front.

Hungary joined the EU in 2004. The country was more democratic back then. There were even some hopes of joining the Euro zone. Then the government of the time cocked up (basically their words), and Fidesz/Orbán, who were part of the anti-communist wave in 1989, gained a supermajority in 2010 and gradually rewrote the constitution and electoral system. Slowly eroded all the systems, took control of all the media, etc.

Not sure when they became Russia-friendly/controlled, but Hungary has been less democratic since 2010 and that's where the problems stem from. I genuinely wonder how much of it all was a Russian plot from the start and how much was opportunistic.

Ok, I might be misunderstanding here, but since committing changes is allowed for everyone, doesn't this mean fixing bugs is something you could do? You'd just be stuck with all the other rights as well until someone else makes a change.

As others said, it's not for everyone. The gameplay loop is and will remain repetitive.

For what it's worth, I hate horror but I generally just get surprised, not scared in this game. To me it's a game where you go in with the mindset that you'll likely die in some horrible way, but it'll make for a funny scene or story afterwards.

I'd actually recommend watching clips of people. Not big name YouTubers, just the random 5-60s clips people upload and figuring out if those sort of events would be things you'd laugh at or enjoy being part of yourself.

That's what Lewis mentioned specifically as well (emphasis mine):

I don’t feel a particular way. Whilst I really like Baku, it’s really a beautiful place, questions in my mind of whether the FIA is really actually thinking about sustainability because so many people flew out here and the FIA is in Paris and it just would have been easier to stay there.

This seems perfectly consistent with his stance of keeping F1 going as a global sport while minimising environmental impact (e.g.: due to travel, which is what he explicitly has issues with in the quote). What's worth a clown emoji here?

isthereanydeal.com lists only legitimate retailers, no second hand/grey market sites. Not exclusively Steam though, so check on the site before purchasing (though usually every website will be selling Steam keys except like Epic Games Store, Microsoft Store, Ubisoft, EA Origin).

You can also link your Steam wishlist, set up alerts for when a game falls below a certain price, etc.

Man who publicly restricts his freedom has his freedom publicly restricted.

On a more serious note though: why is sharing his name and face necessary or even allowed? Seems like it'll result in consequences greater than what the court has deemed appropriate to dole out.