If you never use medicine that was developed with the help of animal testing I guess you could. If you do use pretty much any kind of antibiotics though, or are unfortunately diabetic and have to use insulin, then it would be pretty hypocritical.
If you never use medicine that was developed with the help of animal testing I guess you could. If you do use pretty much any kind of antibiotics though, or are unfortunately diabetic and have to use insulin, then it would be pretty hypocritical.
Good thing guns are banned (in civilized countries anyway) so terrorists can’t use them
What’s the problem with day-one patches? I’d much rather have a game with a day-one patch than a game that needs a patch 1 year after its release
Game + day-one patch is essentially the initial state of the game
So layoffs are bad, but not doing layoffs is bad too?
I would guess all of these are included in the 4.4 million
They don’t though, they disable printing with the subscription’s cartridges. You can still buy other cartridges and it will work.
A day-one patch is the day of the release, so it counts as included in the release in my books.
It doesn’t mean « they haven’t done enough testing before physical production », it means they took advantage of the inevitable several weeks or months between start of physical printing and release.
And of course a patch 1 year after release is fine. What I’m saying is that I prefer a broken game that is fixed on release day over a broken game that is fixed 1 year later.
BG3 had a day-one patch, and is at its 6th hotfix now. Does it make it a broken game?
With the scale of modern AAA games it is inevitable, if a studio had to wait until every bug in a game the size of Starfield was fixed to release it, it would simply never release. You have to decide at some point that the game is in a releasable state, and at this moment you start printing discs, then you keep working on it and fixing bugs and that constitues the day-one patch. And don’t worry about the expansion, they started working on it long before the release.
Some Hamas leader: "We are an Islamic resistance movement" (although there seem to be worse ones around)
Apparently they like islamic dress codes, going so far as to patrolling beaches to enforce them
They don't like music and dance either
Please point to any source (not obviously islamic propaganda) of Hamas not being an islamic organization. I'm not saying it's what makes them the bad guys, just that it's dishonest to say they have "nothing to do with religion"
Hamas [...] has nothing to do with religion
From Wikipedia:
Hamas, an acronym of its official name, Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiya (Arabic: حركة المقاومة الإسلامية, romanized: Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamah al-ʾIslāmiyyah, lit. 'Islamic Resistance Movement')
They’ll probably cost $3,000 (if not more) but they will sell truckloads of them