And who, pray tell, are the "Pigs" in your comment?

And yet, us ahem "Blue Maga" are also the ones who fight for abortion rights. We want justice, not just equality. We hate wars, and dislike people who lie selfishly for gain at the expense of others. We also recognize that not everything can be fixed by anger and good intentions, that there will be setbacks and total failures. Many of us also still have hope and will fight for the rights of even those who view us somehow as their enemy. This is why you see so much less anger directed at you or even at actual MAGA supporters.

We're angry that they've allowed themselves to get duped so badly. We're angry that malicious and evil idealism has even managed to take hold. We're angry at the generations who sat on their hands. We're angry, just a little, at one another for never coming to agreements. While you're busy hyperventilating, take a moment between gasps to consider your position. Why did we go to Iraq? Who continued pushing for wars? Who benefits the most? Which party fights so hard to stop Veteran care?

Be angry, just make sure to point it at the correct people.

At this point the dumbest thing we can do is assume someone else isn't going to do the dumb thing

Sure. Except those on the Left won't. Couple reasons:

1. Can't agree on a reason.

2. Won't agree on a where and when.

3. Will disagree whether it's worth it right now.

Oh yes absolutely, I agree that environmental factors play a role, and that role varies in intensity and direction. Looking at what limited historical evidence I know offhand it appears that the female form has been more consistently sought after. Of course, this could be due to the fact that my historical context are the Romans, Greek, parts of indo-asia, and a sprinkling of Japan. So a rather wide swath of places like South America and Africa aren't really known.

I don't have enough knowledge. It just seems from what I do know that there is some significant focus on this, or maybe just less focus on males in general.

This is interesting. Bear with me, it's 2am, I'm overtired, and this is purely for discussion. Also, this caught the attention of my adhd, so if I try to ignore it I probably won't sleep at all. Anyway, I wonder if it has some basis on how sexuality is represented in the brain in gay men vs gay women. I'm reasoning this because, well...

1. Lesbians: Like the boobas and butts of other women. According to reports women also tend to swing more loosely with their sexuality.

2. Straight Women: Even women who identify as straight can be attracted to other women sexually, just not intimately. They like to also look.

3. Gay Men: From my experience in life, on Reddit, and here on Lemmy, gay men tend to lack similar appreciation for women. Predictably they find other men to be all the rage. There seems to be a more stringent sexual and intimate preference.

4. Straight Men: Yet while straight men like the ladies, we also now know a larger population of males tend toward bisexual curiosity. We are also aware of the sexual repression still prevalent, though arguably less so than ever before.

So what am I getting to? Well, I believe that either gender has a genetic disposition towards the feminine form. On the same tree, both genders tend to enjoy the male form on the same level less. Could this be linked to some ancient survival mechanism a la reproduction? Why does it appear that the woman body is more popular with three of the four major categories and yet to gay men more often completely unremarkable?

I dunno, my brain is yelling at me to sleep. Could anyone add anything? I'm mostly curious and promise I'm not attempting to head in some unknown terrible conclusion someone is bound to try and rope it all into.

You can tell I've had some interesting responses from people on some subjects.

The first thing I did when I was issued a laptop for a job was check for monitoring software of any type. The second thing I did was become extremely suspicious when I couldn't find any. I suppose the rule is "most likely" or "more often than not" while also being "always assume".

I feel it's rather fair to give them a pass on this one. Games with a player base and longer than a passing fart of time in the market? Sure. This was a failed product. They issued refunds. This is a situation where pushing your luck just backs someone into a corner.

We can hope they'll flip the assets and remodel into another title.

Authoritative knee jerk with a bit of ignorance thrown in.

I can agree with this. If we moved to public transit through the utilization of railways and bus routes, would you say the cost of maintenance then moved to the Local and State governing bodies? One might conclude that roadwork costs would decrease positively with the reduction in traffic. There would also be higher maintenance costs, all offset by taxes.

What about the logistics of these operations?

The initial start-up costs?

The time?

The petty small suburban neighborhoods who claim buses increase homeless presence in their neighborhoods?

There would also need to be a fundamental cultural shift on the Professional level.

I know we don't really have all the answers. I just want to make sure we are aware that moving this needle is more than dropping a couple magic bus lines down in each major city, and running a railroad from Point A to B. We do need less cars. I wish I could walk to work. All of this requires an almost mind-boggling amount of preparation and then work to even get started.

Gotta be realistic, otherwise we'll never get anywhere.

I'm all for a significant reduction in vehicles commonly on the road. Apart from a monumental restructuring of the entirety of every major infrastructure in the United States, how would we go about effectively reducing the number of cars that are daily drivers?