Like every other human.
Why is only every other dead human silent? What about the other half?
You can simply take the break and socialize without the smoking part.
FYI, you can see that in the source, which is linked in the description.
I agree. They very likely mean "You could / must / must not peel a banana"
It doesn't seem like trolling to me. Posts do not seem offensive and don't seem to break any of the rules. It seems to be a strong opinion, perhaps misinformed or naive or confusing. But not flat out trolling.
its probably no use to talk with you
I think this thought is a dangerous one. It's a sort of trap that people fall into. It's very alluring and easy to say that. Yet I suggest people stay vigilant and brave and avoid it. Keep in mind it's difficult for people to let go of their opinions, don't resent them for it and try to understand their point of view, maybe there's something in it for you to learn.
collations that ignore the first choice are not legitimate
Why so? Why do you assume that one party should arbitrarily be given more rights/power than others? Where does this idea come from?
Imagine an even more extreme example. Assume the winning party had 5% of the votes and most other parties had around 4-5% of the votes. Then assume that the winning party is unable to convince any other parties to enter into a coalition with them. Should all other parties not be allowed to make a coalition to represent 95% of the voters? Should the "winning" party be allowed to block this? Why should such deadlocks be allowed? What is the argument behind this?
This assumes the opposing party represents every other vote cast, as well that peoples votes are entirely exclusive.
Keep in mind that literally every other party announced beforehand that they would NOT enter into a coalition with this particular party under its leadership. That means any people who voted for another party must've accepted this.
This comment confuses me. So in your opinion, in a proper good non-failing democracy should getting less than 29% of the votes mean you get to rule over everybody and make decisions without anybody interferring? So then in other words, <29% of the population should get to decide who rules alone over 100% of the population? That sounds like it'd be a very counter-productive system.
Not a clone, but imo still very worth mentioning: Mindustry is an automation game with a heavy focus on factory building and a sort of tower defense aspect. The community is very active and there seems to be a lot of variety on multiplayer as well.
Does it make sense to blur names when they're still relatively easy to decipher, when the project can be found on github and the top committer links to their Twitter account? 🤔
Reminds me of a funny performance about the topic by a commedian named ISMO. He does a lot of things with the English language.
Reminds me of Magic Maze, a boardgame in which players play a Barbarian, a Dwarf, an Elf and a Magician who lost all of their gear in battle and now resort to robbing a shopping mall so they can go on their next adventure.
In my experience the most popular and fun "party games" are boardgames such as Top Ten, Time's Up, Hot & Cold or Codenames (more or less in that order). They work best for 6 to 10 players. Though I don't think they shine in a highly competitive tournament setting.
Randomness exists in all of these games but I consider it very balanced/smoothed out so it shouldn't really affect the outcome. Not all of the games I mentioned have permanent teams, but that can easily be changed with house rules.
Oh no ouch. A little bit depressing. Hope it gets better soon!
I think the perspective is confusing. Can't really tell if the character is standing or lying, but I assume the latter.