Low draw means low power and penetration. For speed shooting or distracting/stunning a target, that would be helpful, but you're not gonna kill someone unless it's a very lucky shot. There's a reason war bows were such high draw weight, and it wasn't for piercing plate. More power means more energy retained over distance and more energy delivered to the target. If you're needing to speed shoot in close quarters in a self defense scenario, you're probably better off using the bow as a club or stabbing them with an arrow directly. Archers usually carried other weapons for that reason.

What. Effective public transport and less car centric infrastructure is far and away better for those with mobility issues. Walkable areas does not mean the abolishment of cars, it means more effective use of space and transport. Try visiting Austria or the Netherlands. Getting around is far, FAR easier than any city in the US. I have mobility issues, and require a cane to get around if I'm standing for significant periods, and yet the easiest time I had getting around was the time I spent in Vienna after living in different parts of the US for my whole life.

49.8% is less than 50%... I used AP. I genuinely don't understand your meaning.

Trump didn't even get half of votes, much less half of the population. The vast majority of Americans aren't Trump supporters. Unfortunately, the vast majority of Americans don't vote.

As someone that almost exclusively uses snipers against bugs and bots alike, and plays bugs probably 90% of my time, I could not disagree more. This diligence is definitely not as punchy as the CS, but it's great for groups of chaff. The CS is amazing, and I'm consistently getting 500+ kills and out performing the rest of my 3 man team. With the way I play them, the eruptor and diligence are nearly interchangeable, and I get a ton of kills either way.

How? My loadout is a jump pack and either a commando, EAT, or quasar. My strategems are usually a 500 kg for emergencies when my AT is down and an orbital Gatling for helping manage big breaches. For reference, I only play on difficulty 8-10, depending on how casual my group is feeling on any day.

Step 1: Find bugs/objective

Step 2: Jump pack on top of a rock, or a building if one isn't available. Worst case scenario where you can't find solid high ground, use the jump pack often to reposition to a clear line of sight with plenty of time to stand and shoot.

Step 3: Use your sniper for its optimal use. Diligence? Closer range picking off hunters, scavs, and warriors. CS, the more powerful option imo, target warriors (one shot head), hunters (one shot head and body), and medium targets (hive guard and alpha commanders, both 3 shots head). This thing feels like the old breaker, but at range. It just destroys. If you're using the eruptor, shoot it into groups. Don't focus alpha commanders too much, let the shrapnel deal with them.

Step 4: Profit. Use your primary to deal with patrols before they can get close enough to breach, use your secondary revolver to kill alpha commanders and hive guards rapidly and while saving ammo, and use your anti tank to deal with any heavy threats ahead of time. Anything gets close enough to breach, drop a Gatling barrage on the breach use AT or 500 kgs to kill stray heavies.

I usually finish a mission with no deaths, and always with by far the most kills while running this loadout. Snipers cannot deal with all threats, but they're excellent at thinning out enemy groups with very high ammo efficiency.

And I'm not even mentioning bots. Against bots, all the snipers kick ASS. My CS is one shotting entire patrols of devastators from miles away, my eruptor clears patrols of all kinds easily, and the AT options are so much more consistent against bots. Bots are too easy with snipers. And definitely run the revolver for a low ammo pocket sniper that can deal with rapid hunter packs and charging alpha commander patrols alike.

TLDR: Snipers are really good, they're my main choice, and I'm out performing everyone else. If it's against bots, they're even more incredible.

Apologies! I couldn't see any pronouns from the image so defaulted to gender nonspecific they. Edited.

I think the other comment covered it but I believe this demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what makes photography such an amazing artform. People study and practice, for a long time, to take photos like this. This isn't a cell phone pointed in the general direction of a subject with conveniently optimal lighting for its tiny lens, though that could produce a good picture, this takes a great deal more experience, preparation, and creativity to frame and capture the subject in a certain way with extraordinary timing to get a dynamic, emotion-filled result.

Regardless, she's acclaimed and talented. Her performance was excellent. Her previous performances have been excellent. If all the hypothetical naysayers have to go on is career length, it seems like a very weak motive for selective hatred.

Dude, what are you on about. Plenty of vegans I know go vegan because it's better for the environment. That's a big part of why I'm vegetarian. Why make it such an "us and them" dilemma? They're just people, even if you don't ascribe to their choices. It seems like you're more concerned about being right than being correct.

ml stands for Marxist-Leninist. When anyone is allowed to make their own instance, and instances or users can defederate or block what they don't want to see, why can't an instance be political? That's like saying "no political communities!" Just block them and move on, just as they can do the same. You commented in the memes community of a communist instance and got annoyed that you got banned for being anti-communist. Plenty of instances out there, they don't all need to cater to every person.

External perception should not be a qualifier of gender. Passing shouldn't be required for a trans person to be a member of their gender, much as a feminine presenting man is still a man and a masculine presenting woman is still a woman, unless they say otherwise. Because it's all made up anyways, we can allow the definition to be as flexible as gender itself is.

But yes, gender is often performative, but rather than defining that in the terms of the audience, define it in terms of the cast.

"C" has a purpose separate from sounding like "K." It can also sound like "S," as in "centennial", an SH, as in "special," or make a unique sound when paired up as "CH," as in church. Maybe there should just be a separate character for the "CH" and "SH" sounds, but that's not how the language developed.