No :P

For what?

Isn't deliberately missing the point also satire?

Also, to lean into it: they only took Manhattan because they didn't dare step foot in the other boroughs. Except for a bar in Williamsburg (I'd say one with skeeball but that doesn't narrow it down), they were super popular there.

With plenty of tongue.

I think selling such skulls would be highly unethical.

Would you? Why? FWIW I agree that as long as there's a living person who cares about the fate of the bones then selling them would be unethical, I'm just curious as to your specific reasons - like, what is the hypothetical you're imagining, behind this statement? Are you contending it would be unethical even if nobody living cares, just due to the provenance? I can see why you would object if the former user of the anatomy believed in the sanctity of remains, for example.

I'm not sure I'd agree, but I'm not sure I'd disagree either. I'd need to think on it more. Right now, I'm leaning towards respecting the wishes of the dead as far as their remains go, because the universe is big and cruel and the only kindnesses are those we make for each other, so why shouldn't that extend as far as we do?

Some believe the original spelling of Dionysus was Dion-AI-sus, alluding to the popular god's birth from the Roman Quantum Computing Institute's Silicon Zeus programme. Fun fact: The Institute's motto, found scratched on the underside of nearly every flat surface in their office park just outside what is now Athens, was literally "We put lightning in rocks". Dion-AI-sus' ascent to godhood was the Institute's first replicable success from Silicon Zeus. Their prior creations were mostly failures; only occasionally did they "catch lightning in a bottle" as they put it (presumably to feed to the rocks).

That's crazy! At my job, I just help our users. I don't have to build (and then maintain) infrastructure with them.

I regularly fix my bashrc file with Notepad. I run it in Wine because I cbf to RealVNC from my Windows CE media server.

(n.b: None of this is real, I wrote it to upset people, I'm sorry)

With Warframe, the grind is very there but it's not the point. The point of Warframe is to learn how to slide and float around the level like an anime protagonist with everything falling to ribbons or exploding into gory mist around you, and to look good doing it. The unlocks and currency and quests all serve to open up different places and ways to do that. I saw someone saying the story is great; I dunno, it didn't make a lot of sense to me, but that just means you can ignore it if you want. I put in over 800 hours because that bulletjump traversal feels so damn good (and I hate grind, WoW made that happen years ago). My wife has over 1000 hours; we didn't have a clan, we only played together.

That's a lot of hours, for free.

Yes, and at wholesale rates it's a pretty good bang-for-your-buck, as an advertising scheme. Advertising is a numbers game about getting as many eyeballs as possible on the product, and I know I actively check for free games on the Epic launcher most weeks. Even if I don't ever buy anything because of that specifically, it keeps the app on my computer and keeps me checking back in.

Edit: And I shit you not I just opened it to check 'cause I can't remember if I looked at this week's free game. Turns out it's a good thing I did too, the Fallout collection is free right now!

(dammit, see what I mean?)

No, it is not. Copyright law ensures the original creator gets paid for their work and nobody can imitate it (quite literally "the right to copy") without permission. Copyright law is about making money.

Heritage law is about preserving history.

Ehh, I halfway agree, but there is value in keeping historical stuff around. Heritage laws exist in a good number of countries so that all the cultural architecture doesn't get erased by developers looking to turn a quick buck or rich people who think that 500 year old castle could really use an infinity pool hot tub; there are strict requirements for a building to be heritage-listed but once they are, the owner is required by law to maintain it to historical standards.

I only halfway disagree because you're right, forcing people to pay for something has never sat right with me generally. As long as the laws don't bite people like you and me, e.g. there are relatively high requirements for something to be considered "culturally relevant" enough to preserve, I'd be okay with some kind of heritage system for preserving the internet.