That didn’t take long.

Definitely make sure you think through all the physical security implications of having your house automatically unlock in any scenario.

Have the house auto unlock when getting home on a bicycle, sounds convenient until, as you point out, they could get stolen and now the thief has a convenient way to unlock your house. So you would not want that.

You would definitely not want the house to STAY unlocked when something like a tag is in range. If your kid is home alone, you want them to be able to re-lock the house (or in general, you want to be able to lock your house while the kid is home).

Whatever solution you wind up with, you are going to be trading physical security for ease of use (and complicated fun task). Be safe. Make sure the tradeoffs are actually thought through and worth it.

Hard to unlock the house based on media playing if the kid is outside though.

Oh good, if that is all true, you wont have to change anything to be compliant with new laws and should have no issue with them.

The cross platform friend requests bugs mean I still havent been able to play with the friends who convinced me to buy the game in the first place. But yeah, otherwise quite fun.

Its 100x better of a starship troopers game than the actual starship troopers game that came out last year

He saw himself having an epiphany about privilege in general, so he had to swerve and add race into the mix so he could say a true (albeit unrelated) thing and miss the point.

It’s like when anti BLM people say “All lives matter” … Sure, all lives DO matter, but they’re intentionally missing the point, so they don’t have to acknowledge that police brutality disproportionately affects black lives.

Saying unrelated “true” things to undermine the original statement is a bit telling about intentions.

My dad once told me my mom didnt feel safe walking alone at night in the neighborhood and asked if I felt the same. I said I didnt feel any concerns, but added the caveat that Im not a small woman, and Im a large man.

He paused for a minute, nodded and said “that makes sense.” Then after another few seconds goes “That’s not white privilege.”

Yes. And that is the point of ads. And we can agree that it’s not great to manipulate consumers.

but “you can never save by buying something. I save if I don’t buy” is NOT identifying the presupposition, and therefore not rejecting the presupposition. It’s just stating that the original statement has a logical flaw. Which it doesn’t have any logical flaws if you accept that language has subtext.

“I dislike that the implication is that you can only compare to buying at full price, when there are other options like not buying (which saves 100% vs full price)” identifies the presupposition and rejects it.

You’re playing a semantics game though. The assumption is that you ARE going to buy the thing. Society has decided that “save 77%” is a valid shortening of “save 77% compared to buying at full price” because that is the most logical comparison to make. Yes. “Save 77% compared to not buying the item” makes no sense, but that is clearly not what is being implied here. Implying and inferring things is a normal part of human communication, and refusing to accept the implications doesn’t make you clever.

That said, I agree that “pay 77% less to not even actually own the product that we will eventually lose the license to” is dumb.

It’s a good thing League of Legends is adding Vanguard so it can’t be run on Linux anymore.