stickyShift

joined 1 year ago
[–] stickyShift@midwest.social 32 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Noah had 2 of each species in individual, appropriately salted fishbowls in his ark, duh

[–] stickyShift@midwest.social 17 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Dumb question I'm too lazy to Google - who decides the wording for these questions? It seems like it's always Republicans, no matter who is proposing the question

[–] stickyShift@midwest.social 1 points 1 month ago

So many sandwiches ruined by the author's weird obsession with mayo

[–] stickyShift@midwest.social 48 points 2 months ago (5 children)

Why not get rid of delegates altogether while we're at it?

[–] stickyShift@midwest.social 6 points 3 months ago

No risk. Godot is distributed under the MIT license. If the foundation does something shady, you're free to clone the entire engine, name it "Frodot", and continue to add features to your own version.

Exporting to other platforms like Xbox, Nintendo Switch depend on some additional infrastructure, so the same may not apply.

[–] stickyShift@midwest.social 24 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Oh man, the "quick call?"s are the worst

[–] stickyShift@midwest.social 6 points 4 months ago (3 children)

I am not familiar with the feature you're using, but an "expression" is just some code that evaluates to a value; in other words, it's the right side of the equals sign.

[–] stickyShift@midwest.social 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Flint Flossy has so many smangers. My faves are:
Did I mention I like to dance?
Taste you like yogurt
Fried or fertilized

[–] stickyShift@midwest.social 1 points 11 months ago

I've been using Lawnchair for a few years with no complaints. It's basically the pixel launcher with extra features.

[–] stickyShift@midwest.social 1 points 1 year ago

I probably did a poor job of summarizing, as I'm not a lawyer; here's the key quote from the article:

That doesn’t mean that it will be easy for the Special Counsel to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Donald Trump had the requisite mental state to violate the law. It means that his actions plausibly violate the law.

[–] stickyShift@midwest.social 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I think in this case it's a pretty fair post - tl;dr: the blogger doesn't offer a view on whether or not Trump broke the law, only that his actions could plausibly be illegal based on the sections of the constitution used to prosecute him, and that it's not an obvious win for the prosecutors as it depends on the state of mind that led to the actions.

view more: next ›