Mnemnosyne

That is absolutely not a free feature on Steam. Some publishers like Paradox leave old versions as 'beta' branches to allow us to reinstall them, but Steam as a whole is very against you playing anything but the latest version.

You cannot instruct Steam to not update a game. When you launch a game, Steam will update regardless, unless you have gone offline, or you launch it in a way that bypasses the Steam client. If you ever forget to go offline before launching a game, Steam will forcibly update it

Hey, don't stop at Garland. Who was Garland's boss, who could have told Garland to do his fucking job or be replaced by someone who will?

Never forget that failure to deal with Trump is ultimately on Joe Biden and no one else.

It's an innocent looking woman bawling her eyes out while being arrested. Why would they think this would help their anti-immigration cause?

Didn't you notice her skin is dark, and she's fat? Also probably something about her hair. These obvious signs point to the true evil inside her, you see! Only a bleeding heart satanic liberal atheist could see that and think she's an innocent woman!

There's a good chance it wouldn't stick depending on many factors, but it's extremely expensive to fight in court, and courts have shown themselves to be very hit or miss with technological things. Especially when trying to apply rules that were not written with things like software in mind.

He's the guy the toilets are named after.

Needs an update. There's a lot Marx got right, but a lot of assumptions and beliefs that didn't pan out, too. Those need to be accounted for.

One problem is people can't keep secrets. This involves too many people who would have to keep the secret. And when it comes out that it's just a marketing ploy, some portion of the customers would be even more upset.

Too much light for it to be a grue, it has to be pitch black for that.

Exposing kids to sex too early isn’t good for their development.

Depends on what you mean by this. If you mean involving them in it, then yes, probably (qualified because I know of no actual research on the matter; nor do I know of any way such research could be conducted so we will probably have to settle with 'yes, probably' as the closest answer to accurate).

If you mean allowing them to be aware of it as something that adults do, and occasionally seeing adults engaged in sexual activity, then no. The behavior of shielding children from both even having knowledge of sex, and witnessing it performed by adults, is relatively new, largely taking hold after the Reformation based on my relatively surface-level dives into the subject in the past (I have learned that going deep into this is difficult, the scholarly texts are long and difficult to read for laymen). In medieval times and before, children were aware of adults having sex; they often could not be kept unaware because there was no place for the adults to gain privacy. The modern view of the past is bizarrely anachronistic in that we project prudishness and avoidance of sexuality to a time period centuries before it actually became that way.

Thus, it becomes clear that the avoidance of children being aware of sex existing and happening is a very specific cultural phenomenon that does not paint an accurate picture of actual harm to children, and is based primarily in christian moralizing.

… else?

This presumes I would consider the creature that was killed as 'someone'.

And sure, legally he has to claim that. But unless all the evidence they found on him was planted, which I think is a bit too much of a stretch (not because I don't think they would do it, but because I think it would be too likely to come out that it was planted), then in any situation where my comments do not cause legal jeopardy I don't have an issue talking about him doing it as though it were fact.

Yeah, I've got some tips..

One, don't be a moron and send threatening emails before the job is done, that just puts people on alert and makes it more likely you get caught, especially considering traceability of email.

Two, don't fire blindly into a house you colossal moron, you can probably find a hiding spot good enough to wait until your target comes outside so you can get a clear shot.

Three, don't pull out the gun until you've got a confirmed target, and don't pull the trigger unless you're goddamn sure you got a killing shot, on the right target. Remember one of the things everyone likes about Luigi is that he was successful, and the other thing everyone likes is he didn't hurt anyone.

And four, if successful, once you get out of the immediate area, make sure not to be carrying around any goddamn incriminating evidence.

Frankly, these are really bad laws. It is a good thing that he appears not to be inclined to even try to take advantage, but those laws explicitly encourage remaining at war in order to maintain power, so a worse person would definitely be trying to maintain a forever war situation.