Yet I fear that the second amendment mostly exists as a pacifier to keep people clinging to the perceived security of "having the 2nd amendment after all".

Keeping something as a last resort is meaningless if you are never willing to actually tap it.

Then it is just comfort.

When I was like 7-9 I went on a "camping" trip with my football/soccer team.

Really, we were just putting up tents on the field we usually practiced at after some very tame river rafting.

It was the first time I was away from my parents. And I was inconsolable. I cried most of the night. To the point the supervisors offered to call my parents so I could talk to them. (And mobile phoning someone back then was not cheap),

In the end I just cried myself empty.

Because I was asleep so late, I slept into the morning and my "tent mates" pulled down the tent around me while I was sleeping.

So I woke up in drizzling rain, lying in my sleeping bag on a thin plastic sheet with no tent around me. While all my "friends" were in the club house having breakfast.

I did not stay in the soccer club long after that.

covered in cobwebs, confusing the birds and one flick away from total darkness.

Where else do you get mortgages?

I mean, technically you can contract a mortgage between any two legally able persons.

But I'd say a mortgage between private individuals is a rare exception.

Usually it is bank/credit unions, or corporations specializing in mortgages as their primary business. But I think you can lump most of those under the umbrella term. At least as far as their employees being able to just approve or deny you for personal reasons.

Maybe the mortgage application was just not within approval guidelines. It is not like a bank clerk gets to arbitrarily decide by personal sympathy.

Maybe there is another side to this toxic macho "manosphere" you mention.

After all, as a baseline men are by nature predisposed and culturally conditioned to protect and be considerate to women.

Despite all lamentation, Chivalry is not dead for some.

So obviously the sanctity of a woman's restroom is more highly valued than that of a men's bathroom. After all, women are more vulnerable and more often targeted in that way.

So the debate tends to skew towards women spaces, as those are more likely to cause public discord if disturbed.

Rarely are men stepping up on the soap crate to defend their own spaces. Because after all, they are strong enough to take any number of "inconveniences" and disadvantages because to admit to struggling with them would be weakness.

I'm not saying it's fair, or right, or how it should be. But maybe that bias isn’t always driven by hostility. Maybe it’s just that society still places more weight on protecting women, while expecting men to grit their teeth and deal with it. Even when those same men help reinforce that standard among themselves.

It doesn’t make the imbalance okay, and it doesn’t mean the outrage is consistent. But it might explain why all the noise gets focused on trans women. It’s not just transphobia, it’s the scaffolding of gender roles, still quietly deciding who gets defended, and who’s expected to tough it out.

It seems absurd to conceptualize a "chivalrous transphobe". But we are all more than just one label.

I reckon we have reached that state for a long time.

The vast majority of people would have a pretty hard time without food logistics, utilities, medical treatments, pharmaceuticals. The list goes on.

All of which are provided by corporations of some form or another.

Something something about civilization being 5 warm meals away from collapse.

I would find it hard to make a general judgement here.

The human-analogies some people make are rather unconvincing. I'd think physiologically cats are less diverse than humans are. In both species size translates to weight, force, reach.

There are outliers, but most house cats are still "fit" enough not to suffer massive disadvantages.

So it would be more a matter of size and stature than lifestyle. A Main Coon with their voluminous fur might enjoy a form of natural armor. But the same fur would exist if it was a street cat (bar any diseases).

And they also possess natural weapons that are not related to their grooming and lifestyle (much). If some jerk has their house cats declawed, maybe. But usually claw is claw and tooth is tooth.

What will probably be the most decisive factor, just as it is in humans, is aggression and killer instinct. That is where a street cat might be better conditioned. On the other hand, animals lean heavier on instinct and even the gentlest house cat can become vicious when exposed to the right stimulus.

tl;dr I am not sure

I want a place that makes tiny burgers

Forget the premium burger places where burgers are held together by whaling harpoons and you need to eat them deconstructed. Instead of one giant undesirable burger give me a plate with 4 regular sized burgers in exciting variations.

Give me a chicken chili burger, a double irish beef patty blue cheese burger, an italian herb lamb patty and as a chaser a smoked bison brisket with bourbon sauce.

All on one plate. I would be happy

4 burgers. 1 plate. 0 regrets.

And if you don't like one, you have 3 more chances to forgive the cook.

First experiment: pressing women into being scientists.

Success.

Second experiment: pressing scientists into women.

Failure. Called eugenicist, chased by pitchforks.

Curious. Same ingredients, different reaction. Something's missing... maybe it's pantsuits.

Thanks for the reply. I do appreciate your candor.

I wish you would have actually said anything about the game. I know that you enjoyed it. 45$ worth, at least.

You are blown away and find it breathtaking, but I am not really sure why that is.

Asking people what they like about a piece of media is not "letting internet strangers form your opinion".

I was asking because I am wondering where the game's strengths lie and what it does exceptionally well. Because then I could compare that to what I value most in a space game. And could decide if I give the free fly a try or spend my time on any of the other infinity+1 amounts of things to indulge in. (Which is right now emulating Bloodborne and playing Clair Obscure)

Elite Dangerous, X4, EVE or any other high-depth simulators never totally clicked with me. But I have spent considerable hours in Star Sector or the Starpoint Gemini games. Games that make me feel like I am a space cowboy without throwing me infinite possibilities with no reason to pursue any of them. Which is often the feeling No Man's Sky is giving me.

If I had to sum it up, I'd say I am more interested in Space RPGs than Space Simulators.

Maybe you could have shared what is actually sensational about the game. Which would probably have done more to counter any unfair criticism towards it, than just expounding on how unfounded preconceived opinions about it are. After all you love the game. So let some of that love shine through and carry the day.

I should have chucked the lines about budget and time, because they raised your hackles so much. You are probably used to the game being attacked on that avenue.

Maybe it is top of the pack in the genre; but by how much?

For how absolutely out of any reasonable dimension their budget and development timeframe is, what have they to show for it, that you cannot get from X4 or Elite: Dangerous or any Starship Traders or any similar game? I cannot imagine it doing every single appeal of those games better.

Honest question, as I do not like the super deeply simulated games anyway. I like my space sims at least 30% arcade-y and easy to pick up.