Habahnow

yes. kind refreshing to see that it isn't just american influencers that make emotionally charged and shitty content.

TLDW: Foxhole allows the environment to change in ways other games don't (snow causing direct death, visibility problems, rain causing mud which slows units down etc. ), and also providing options for dealing with these environmental concerns, gives off a realistic war feeling. This in combination with the fact that foxhole allows and requires players to participate in all aspects of fighting a war (material extraction, weapon manufacturing, transport manufacturing, transportation, building of defenses, actual fighting), help provide a feeling of participating in a war that other milsims don't show.

Admittedly, I feel like this game doesn't satisfy what people are looking for in a milsim. Foxhole is a top down shooter, while most milsims are over the shoulder 3rd person or 1st person with a huge focus on tactics and execution. Foxhole seems to pull out a bit more, still allowing tactics planning and execution, but overal strategy and logistics are also added into the game.

If i want to refer to people with your condition, what would the best term to use? Dwarf?

What's the biggest issue you feel you deal with as a person with dwarfism? What do you think is the biggest upside that people are least aware of?

You mentioned you are not single,in a comment, in what ways was your dating experience unique because of your dwarfism? I appreciate your ama!

Good point. I don't know why I didn't think about this sooner, i literally use it for other programming stuff.

Nazi mastermind: "Everything is going so well, people are painting swastikas on our vehicles to drive around in"

He's a pathological liar is the best case. Worst case is he does want to do those things, and this is how he pitches the idea to see if they gain traction. Day 1 dictator didn't exactly happen, bue he's definitely trying to get there as soon as he can.

I disagree with your catch 22 statement, my understanding of how our elections work is that Democrats would have lawyers/representatives at locations to verify result as they come in to centralized hubs and also sent out. Especially in hotly contested areas. Voting is so decentralized, there would need to be large swaths of people involved on both the republican and democrat side to allow for vote manipulation. All this is to say, you don't need to look for election fraud in this situation, it would become apparent when vote tallies are not adding up, and surprising voting numbers are coming from only certain areas. I have found no reliable new organization discussing evidence of election fraud in the form of vote manipulation and if you have a source, I'd be interested in reading about it. Unless I see any evidence, it just seems like left wing conspiracy thinking that does a good job at distracting people and normalizing vote manipulation when there's already real issues in front of us ( Musk paying people to vote, areas not providing sufficient voting booths for populations making for longer vote times, voter ID laws, etc).

I feel it's also pretty naive to believe generalizations such as "every accusations is a confession" are perfectly representative. Sure that saying applies a lot to Republicans, but it doesn't mean its a rule.

I will admit, when I hear election fraud I understand the term to mean, directly subverting election rules. This would entail: changing votes, tallying votes incorrectly, accepting fraudulent votes willingly etc. I don't believe Trump and company did any of these things, or if they did, not enough to make an impact on the election. I'm willing to accept evidence to the contrary.

Reading the definition of election fraud, it also can include the examples you mentioned (which i would say isn't in my original and incorrect understanding of election fraud). I do agree that Trump and his team did do many things that subvert a free election including some that you said such as the Musk lotteries, the bomb threats in blue areas, allowing laws that make voting harder in blue areas, etc.

The reason I'm expanding on what kind of election fraud I believe Trump committed is because some of it has evidence, and others (Trump/Musk directly changing votes/not counting votes) just doesn't have any evidence. I would imagine Democrats and reporters would be very eager to publish this kind of evidence if it existed, but I don't know of any reliable news organization talking about this. I feel it ultimately servers as a distraction and actually normalizes the idea of election fraud in the form of changing votes.

I mean Trump says a lot of things that are outright lies. That's not very convincing honestly.

Unless I see some hard evidence, this take just seems like liberal qanon BS.

Trump had a lot of social media help (Elon, benzos, Zuckerberg) and money to help him win the election.

"wow these ukrainians really abused the crap out of these people, they'll even lie about the fact that they were brutally abused! Maybe we have to be more violent to our captured areas.

First thing that comes to mind.