Sonic Unleashed was my game. Second only to Sonic Black Knight.

To give you a real unbiased answer as someone who's actually used the headset, the Quest 3 is the best VR headset you'll get for the money. Pancake lenses are amazing, performance is really good, software has gotten ages better since launch. Meta throttles the chipset a lot, with QGO (an app) you can meet or be just under PC quality on most games, but the base headset is fine by itself.

As for games, there's never been a better time to hope in. But I'll be honest my Q3 is practically a beat saber machine at this point. I haven't found another game to be as enticing. Pistol whip was meh, I couldn't get into B&S or Asgards wrath, Metro Awaking isn't my type of game. It's really up to you to decide how valuable VR is.

No one using this platform is indicative of the average person.

No sugar, but they are overwhelmingly sweet from sucralose.

Wow, shocked! If asa releases on Xbox it will be horrid. I quit after 30 hours of dealing with crashes and performance issues. That's just single player, official servers crash every 1-2 hours and roll back, deleting tames and wiping your inventory.

Yet some still defend wildcard as if they don't have nearly a decade of experience working on this game. It's obvious upper management is the issue , but I'm not supporting this crap again.

I've only had stuttering issues with my 7 y/o Samsung. The $150 Roku TV I bought a year ago has no issues.

Here are a few examples that could support the claim that Republicans have opposed net neutrality regulations:

• In 2017, the Republican-controlled FCC under chairman Ajit Pai repealed the net neutrality rules that had been put in place during the Obama administration. This allowed ISPs more freedom to throttle or prioritize certain content and services.
• Congressional Republicans have generally opposed legislation to restore net neutrality rules. In 2018, the Senate passed a bill to reinstate the rules, but it did not advance in the Republican-controlled House.
• Major broadband providers like Comcast and Verizon have historically donated more to Republican politicians than Democrats. Republicans have received criticisms that these donations sway their positions against net neutrality rules.

Here are some sources that could counter or provide an alternative perspective to the claim that Republicans uniformly oppose net neutrality:

• The conservative advocacy group FreedomWorks supported the 2017 FCC net neutrality repeal under Ajit Pai. However, they opposed a bill in 2012 that they argued would have given the government too much control over the internet. This illustrates more nuanced positions.
• Former Senator John Thune (R-SD) proposed net neutrality legislation in 2015 that attempted to find a middle ground. It would have banned blocking and throttling but avoided heavier utility-style regulations advocated by Democrats. This demonstrated a more moderate Republican approach.
• Polls indicate Republican voters are nearly as supportive of net neutrality protections as Democrats and independents. A 2018 poll by the University of Maryland found 86% of Republicans opposed the FCC repeal. This suggests public opinion within the party is mixed.

As for your last point, you act like any of those dinosaurs know how to.

My LG V60 didn't have this problem. I used Niagara and Nova launcher full time on it.

When looking at data on causes of death, adjusting for population size provides important context and allows us to make fairer comparisons over time. The raw number of deaths increasing could be due to a number of factors not directly related to topic. While that isn't the case here, it necessary to factor this in.

However, you raise a fair point - we should not lose sight of the real human impacts and absolute number of lives lost. Behind every statistic is an individual tragedy. We should have compassion for those suffering while also trying to objectively understand the data.

Perhaps there is room for nuance - we can acknowledge that adjusting for population provides useful perspective, while also recognizing that any preventable loss of life to extreme heat is highly concerning and worthy of solution-oriented discussion. If we aim for intellectual honesty and keep our shared goals of truth and human welfare in mind, we are more likely to have productive dialogues on complex issues like this. You'd call out opposing groups if they were to do this, but it's fine if it supports a narrative you agree with? We know the climate's changing we've all stepped outside. It's not necessary to use tactics like this to gain public favor.

Playing devil's advocate here, but there's spillters for that.

Same for me. Last time I posted there was eight years ago. I only keep it installed for the occasional message from an old friend.

The end goal of a social media platform is for users to use your platform. You want them engaging with content and ads. Rate limits are actually quite sensible if you want to prevent bots or data scraping, but the Twitter is being far too restrictive.

Lots of people are claiming to get rate limited after a few minutes of normal scrolling. Which makes me think these limits include replies as well. Realistically your not scrolling through, and Twitter isn't loading 600 posts for a least a couple hours. Even then, do you not want people using your platform?