In the first few Assassin’s Creed games, they did use the idea of a Puppeteer system for the control scheme, although it wasn’t physics-based or anywhere near as hard as QWOP. Each of the controllers face buttons performed actions associated with each limb, and the right trigger would swap between low profile actions and high profile actions.

In the top right of the screen, there was always a UI element showing what the buttons did at that moment in that context, which might’ve been why you thought it was a QWOP style system. It’s not exactly what you were thinking of at the time, but you were closer than you realise.

Why is daydream Homer closer to the modern colours than real Homer? Maybe we’re seeing modern Simpsons through Homer’s daydreams.

My hypothesis is that they’re like The Suit by Scott Base.

Quaso

The enemy of my enemy has his uses, but that absolutely does not make him my friend.

Yeah, obscure interests are hardly a thing of the past. If anything it’s only gotten stronger, people of all ages can now be sucked so far down the fandom rabbithole that they lose sight of it being their obscure interest.

Although the way it used to be, kids would have access to one obscure thing, and so that’s their one chance at having an obscure interest. That’s changed, kids now get much wider choice.

Edit: Clarity

Increased use of “buy now, pay later” loans may signal shifting consumer habits, but could also be a troubling sign of financial stress.

Passive voice for WE’RE FUCKED!

it’s not just about suicide

That’s what I just said.

Late edit, but just repeating to make sure it’s clear: Most if not all other dangers can be mitigated depending on who you are. There are plenty of people responsible enough to mitigate almost all of the risks, and other people who would be completely incapable of mitigating the risks.

That article is only relevant to people who have thoughts of suicidal ideation, and doesn’t say anything about “most people”. Here’s an article which shows a more full picture: https://www.kqed.org/science/1916209/does-gun-ownership-really-make-you-safer-research-says-no

Now whilst your claim is correct, as the KQED article confirms, there’s also more to it. When choosing to own a firearm or not to own a firearm, you probably shouldn’t just count yourself as “most people” and leave it at that. Instead, it could be better to judge each source of safety or harm and figure out if they’re relevant to you.

For example, if you’re someone who doesn’t stand out at all, but is known to be reckless and has thoughts of suicidal ideation, then you shouldn’t be anywhere near a firearm. But, if you; are known to be a level-headed person, have experience safely handling dangerous machinery, understand how to avoid and de-escalate situations, are willing to go through and keep up with firearms training, have never had thoughts of suicidal ideation and are openly part of a minority group that is currently being hunted by a violent cult, then owning a firearm becomes a much more reasonable decision.

Of course, most people will fall somewhere between these two extremes.

Measurehead, is that you?

This could be a useful way to describe an unopened Twix. But once it’s been opened, the direction of the Twix relative to the opening (with the text being at the top) matters more than the direction relative to the text.

Here’s some articles with the video the title seems to be referring to:

https://newsinisrael.co.uk/moshe-feiglin-on-channel-14-every-baby-in-gaza-is-an-enemy/

https://humanityrenewed.com/more-calls-for-genocide-and-ethnic-cleansing-on-israeli-television/

Those don’t look like functioning eyes, but rather just adornments, engravings that give no tactical advantage (except maybe drawing attention a heavily armoured area). Instead, I always thought his eyeline might be the slit right along the bottom of the face. That’d give him a proportionate head and neck.

Just as the founding fathers intended.

I think he’s a bot. The comment doesn’t even make sense, since OP’s from the same instance, and a cursory glance at his comment history only reinforces my suspicion.

Edit: Nevermind, OP’s from Lemmingsworld, not lemmyworld. And I wouldn’t recommend looking at this users comment history. It shows a sad and lowkey disturbing tale of constant serial rageposting and insulting random people, then blaming everyone and everything but himself whenever he gets any reply he doesn’t like (which would be most replies).

Matilda. The 1996 version with Danny DeVito, not the new one.

Panel 1: The cheetah(?) approaches the photographer and asks to see the photo they recently took of it.

Panel 2: The photographer shows the cheetah the photo.

Panel 3: The photo.

Panel 4: The cheetah disapproves of how goofy it looks in the photo and asks for it to be deleted.

Lemme get uhhh… B O N E L E S S C A T

It’s a game, Cyberpunk 2077. Luigi Mangione’s face has been edited onto Johnny Silverhand, a veteran turned rockerboy turned anti-corporate revolutionary turned cyber-ghost, played by Keanu Reeves in the game.

You don’t have to fake a customer service smile to be friendly.

Edit: and you weren’t just saying “being nice to people is a good thing” though, were you? Maybe read your own comment and the replies instead of making up a strawman.