You’re assuming that they scouted this and carefully planned it to ensure they wouldn’t cause damage. I doubt that.
The canvas of the painting is protected with a glass screen, a factor Just Stop Oil said they had taken into account.
You’re assuming that they scouted this and carefully planned it to ensure they wouldn’t cause damage. I doubt that.
The canvas of the painting is protected with a glass screen, a factor Just Stop Oil said they had taken into account.
The headline reads like an onion article.
The house might look good in a sort of greeny-teal shade
I wonder if the new excuse any time a media company does something dodgy is “oh it was the AI sorry!”
If they still have nothing in a few months I guess their main value will be as a protest vote.
I guess we’ll have to wait and see.
What’s the point of contesting if you have no policy positions? All they’ve said afaik is pretty much identical to lib talking points “labur/greens is failing the act”, “no one is listening to the people”
So far seems pretty cynical imo.
I haven’t quite finished it yet, my feeling is that it slightly overstays it’s welcome.
I’ve also noticed that most of the time I do a thing or two in the game then realise there’s not quite enough time in the loop to do another thing, but just enough time to make me want to not waste the loop, since I find starting a new loop a bit tedious.
From memory it respawns the low level enemies constantly, since they’re just ammo/health/armour pinatas. You needed to kill the big enemies to complete an arena.
Not really a fan of the design choice, but I had a decent amount of fun when I clicked with how the Devs wanted you to play.
slug
That’s “vindictive and devious baby elephant” to you mate.
It really is shocking how talentless you can be to be a successful right wing talking head.
I convinced my partner to play it recently and the way I knew she’d finished it was that I could hear sniffling from the desk behind me.
American politics infects Australian politics in many ways sadly.
This changes the effect of negative campaigning (people still show up in Aus vs the US), but the idea is to dissuade people from voting for someone, rather than encourage them to vote for you. This might have a positive effect on votes for the party doing the negative campaigning, but I think it’s a poor definition of convincing someone to vote for you.
I don’t think this is a useful definition of voting for
which implicitly gets them to vote for you.
Seems to only be true if you think of there being only 2 parties, which is why I don’t think the definition is good.
It’s hard to cuff someone doing a nazi salute when your right hand is up in the air.
Compulsory voting means any campaign has to be focused on actually getting people to vote for you
I don’t think this is necessarily true, did you miss the massive amounts of negative campaigning that happens every election?
“if you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear” was always BS.
Yeah but how are the cops supposed to access our data without a warrant or any form of notice?
Maybe they have some condition which compels them to blow up medical centres, and eventually they’ll be firing missiles at hospitals in Europe because there’s none left in the region