… you don’t need to prep your dishes before putting it in the dishwasher.

Isn’t that what Iphone and Android already do?

hardened

Damn, your boy has standards. I love how he told you his reasoning lol

Look how well that American dream is going

The “US is too big” is such a bullshit excuse since cars are absolutely crap for long distances compared to trains people already walk and cycle in the US. And why is the richest and most powerful (for now at least) country in the world unable to fix it’s zoning laws? Especially since other countries seem to be able to do it.

Yes, efficiency in reducing the amount of people with jobs but not by getting people from a to b. What is convenient is not having to own a car in the first place and be able to get around with ease because of proper urban planning.

The future is automated travel because vehicles can be used more productively on the margin than everybody having to own their own car. Fewer cars, higher use of the car, or less idling, means lower transportation costs throughout, which includes infrastructure itself; the less need for insurance, less pollution, etc. This technology can be used in bus transit systems as well for a less marginal benefit.

Sooo like a what’s already possible with trains and trams? And buses on dedicated lanes would be far easier to automate and be more efficient than cars.

Bicycles? ride/ walk to were you need to be? Why do you need to be driven to an exact point? All the space needed for parking is just wasted.

You need to create a specific scenario in order to make cars seem more efficient than alternatives. They cause more accidents, take up more space while carrying fewer people at any given time while also causing more pollution than other modes of transport.

And yet it’s still the least efficient mode of transport.

I see, I guess their single plant can’t keep up with demand.

The manufacturing county of the world is manufacturing this car?

How in the absolute fuck is chromium an alternative?

The more you buy the more you save

I’d much rather Microsoft work on improving windows than adding features that I don’t need or want.

Maybe don’t piss off your customers?

Most? Have you read all 600+ negative reviews?

Ubisoft has clearly made a name for itself by making mediocre content and this game has only reinforced that image but being upset about that is wrong apparently.

The game clearly doesn’t appeal to the majority of players and that makes you upset. Blaming the “ubisoft haters” or the “anti woke” just sounds like you’re trying to find a convenient scapegoat for why the game isn’t doing well. If the game was good people would play it regardless of who the publisher is.

So are you fine with people not enjoying the game if it’s got nothing to do with Ubisoft? Because a lot of the reviews are just that.

Fair enough, thanks

Why do you feel the need to defend a large company from a negative image that they have created for themselves?

I see, I didn’t know that the word meant something different in Star Wars.

And yes I have.

Why does being a scoundrel excuse not having the option to shoot from a speeder?

One of the definitions of scoundrel is “A wicked or evil person; someone who dies evil deliberately.” Bounty hunters can be scoundrels too.

If Key was an actual scoundrel it would’ve made the game much more entertaining. The unconfident scrawny teenager Kay is now doesn’t fit in with the outlaw world at all.