jedibob5

As someone who played a lot of FH5 on Game Pass, that never happened. The DLCs added new content, they never took away existing content and locked it behind the DLC. You must have misunderstood something.

What I don't understand is why they don't just let everyone place orders regardless of current stock over a certain time window, then once the ordering window is closed, arrange for production to meet demand? Or at least do something like a first-come, first-serve waitlist after the initial stock sells out.

Sure, it would take significantly longer to go from order to delivery, but the customer experience would be so much better without having to deal with the mad scramble to try and get an order in the minute they open up. Letting people stake their claim even if stock hasn't caught up yet would also deter scalpers.

Maybe there's a good reason for this, but I don't know what that could possibly be.

The most that I can prove is Europa Universalis 4, just north of 1100 hours on Steam. However, I strongly suspect my playtime in Guitar Hero 3 from high school likely exceeds that. Runescape might be another contender, but that was so long ago at this point that I don't really have a good idea of how much play time I actually put into it.

Echoes of when the Long Island Iced Tea company rebranded to "Long Island Blockchain" back during that particular craze.

Why does this meme seem to indicate that humanity has already had a nuclear war in the past?

It looks like a Facebook game, ngl.

The pinching of the cytoplasm when it starts to split in mitosis is known as cleavage.

I feel like that's pretty meaningfully different from the original claim that the US government allows cigarettes to be advertised to children.

Didn't they close up the loopholes in advertising regulations that Juul exploited?

What? Tobacco is like, the one thing that actually has extremely stringent advertising regulations in the US. When vaping products like Juul came around, they were able to exploit loopholes in those laws, but I think those have pretty much been patched up by now.

In the context of the 1st Amendment it's not illegal censorship, as private entities aren't bound by the 1st Amendment in their own private spaces in the same way the government is. But in a more general sense you are correct, I think my brain just strongly associates accusations of censorship (in a US context at least) with accusations of 1st Amendment violations. I'll adjust the phrasing.

The moderators of online communities have every right to manage the content of those communities as they see fit, as long as they're within legal bounds.

That said, individuals also have the right to call said moderators a bunch of clueless asshats when they make dumbass decisions, as long as they're abiding by the policies of the space where they're saying it.

Microsoft banning the word "Microslop" from their Discord ~~isn't censorship~~ is well within their legal rights, but they are a bunch of clueless asshats for thinking that it was a good idea.