Shorter snouts, floppier ears, and different patterning in fur. Also, they weren't red foxes, they were grey foxes

I just find the up-nod extremely douchy in any circumstance

You're an idiot. You didn't address anything I said

You can get Pixel 10's on Swappa for under $500 in good condition

and it's a hilarious thing to do to someone

To someone who deserves it. Thankfully/unfortunately, there's plenty of deserving tech CEOs for our amusement, including this asshat

If it wasn't, then buying a single copy would legally allow you to sell an infinite amount of copies.

Because that's what actually owning software means.

This. Is. A. FUCKING. Lie.

If I buy and own a physical copy of a book. I am not then entitled to set up a printing press and sell my own word-for-word copies of said book. Same applies to ownership of digital goods.

If I go to GOG and buy a DRM free game (aka I would then own that copy) I still wouldn't have the legal right to distribute copies to other people.

That's because copyright laws exist, and they apply to both situations I described. Shame on you for mindlessly repeating industry lies.

Its only bad once it takes the form of Communism/socialism for the masses.

FTFY

These corporate assholes love socialism when it helps them, just not when it helps anyone else

In my experience pizza <insert any food that isn't pizza> is always disappointing.

Pizza bagels? Not great.

Pizza sandwiches? Also meh.

Pizza soup? Haven't had it, but also probably not great.

Pizza pizza? That's a calzone.

I expect pizza tacos to be just as dissappointing

California

They still have sane leaders

No, Gavin Newsom is at best a moderate. He's helped push for a lot of the surveillance state that's being rolled out in the US. Same with New York's governor.

That being said, Zoran Mamdani (who's the mayor of NYC, not governor of the state) is doing a good job so far and I'm looking forward to what him and his allies do in the next few years

Just like Android users who say they want to get away from Google, all the while shouting "never Apple" despite Apple claiming to stand for privacy while Google does not hide the fact that they sell your data to the highest bidder.

despite Apple claiming to stand for privacy

CLAIMING.

They're both multibillion dollar tech corps that sell your data. Trust neither.

I should also point out that one has had a defacto walled garden for decades now, the other is still putting up the walls. But regardless, trust neither.

Don't switch to Apple. Switch to actually private operating systems like GrapheneOS or Linux.

Not enough Nazis were hung at Nuremburgh

Not, that'd be a violation of GPL, MIT, etc.

They have closed source code, so nobody besides Apple's engineers and programmers can verify those claims. And since they work for Apple they have an inherent bias.

Since their claims cannot be independently verified, we cannot take their claims at face value. It doesn't prove they're lying, but it also doesn't prove that they're telling the truth. All people know is what their marketing department puts out.

But if that's enough for you to believe that they respect privacy, then I have a bridge to sell you as well...

You have to buy a Google phone (i.e. pay iPhone 17 Pro money for an iPhone 11-powered phone), so Google already double dipped.

1: You can buy used, which means not giving money to Google

2: In what way is this "already double dipped"? Double dipping would be selling your data after selling you the phone, but you reserved that for "triple dipping"

Violent crime is driven by economic inequality, not by proliferation of guns. Tax the rich, pay people a fair wage, provide universal healthcare, investing in public infrastructure, etc. are how you reduce violent crime.

But rich people don't want to do that. They want to hoard their wealth and oppress people as they please, so they distract the masses by claiming it's due to proliferation of guns, atheists, LGBT folks, etc. The rich will use any scapegoat they can find to avoid fixing actual problems.

Tbh, onions actually can't make me cry. I've tried, and it can actually be a curse. 1 onion isn't a problem, but cutting 3 entire bags in 1 go is just pain when your eyes aren't diluting the acid

You don't get to tell people how to spend their time and money

So it was less of a "incest relationship", and more a someone who wanted her brother back

Wasn't there a scene where it was heavily implied that Suguha had just masturbated to Kirito? You're writing an entire essay to argue against what the anime very directly states.

The series NEVER fantasized SA, it clearly shows how bad it is and has our protagonist stops it

Take a step back and actually loom at the show. None of the actions or plans for any of the villians ever make any sense. The sexual assualts are distractions to prevent the audience from realizing that. But the author picks distractions that he thinks are cool. It's a tactic called 'debate and switch'. It's when the author writes themselves into a corner that they don't want to address, so they have the villain do something ridiculously evil out of left field to distract the audience.

These reasons are why I can't SAO haters, your heads so far up your ass

Ironic. A lot of us can actually tell when the author makes immature asspulls throughout the series. But you seem incapable of that and get irrationally angry about it.

What's really sad is that I originally sympathized with you. I despise NGE and everyone who tries to push it into my face. But you've just been so unpleasant here that I don't give a shit. Ta ta

Also as a sidenote: this asshole also wrote "glomping 2 years of cum into her pussy" in one of SAO's side stories. The author hasn't matured past age 14. Maybe that's why you're a fan of the series.

Suguha is explicitly stated to be Kirito's cousin and was also raised as his sister. It's alsoexplicitly stated that she was in love with Kirito. This is in the 2nd half of season 1, the Alfheim Online Arc.

And there's also the scene where Asuna escapes from her cell in the 2nd half of season 1, where she ends up recaptured by guards who for some "mysterious" reason are tentacle monsters, and casually suggest tentacle raping Asuna before putting her back in her cage. And there is literally 0 point for the scene to be like this except the writer and anime studio wanted to suggest tentacle rape.

If you had instead said it's just a couple of bad scenes in an otherwise good show, that'd be one thing. I wouldn't agree, but I could at least respect that argument. But no, you didn't make that argument. You instead feigned ignorance of a show you claim to be a fan of just to call me a poser.

And for the record, I watched through Gun Gale Online when it came out. The end of that was barely less gross than the Alfheim Arc.

That's my guess too