• Populous - The Beginning
• Command & Conquer - Red Alert 2
• Call of Duty - Modern Warfare 2
• Super Mario 64 DS
• Europa Universalis III

I think at least. Mario Kart DS also ranks highly of course, so does Team Fortress 2 and Supreme Commander Forged Alliance. GTA SA/IV, Pokémon Diamond, Wii Sports, Super Mario Galaxy. I gamed a lot as a kid/teenager so there’s plenty that influenced me.

International law doesn’t put up any of those restrictions. As an illegal occupying force Israel is not allowed to dictate what the “proper” channels are.

I’m not sure a technical solution is feasible, other than dns-blocking these trackers. I suppose lawmakers need to spring into action to make this shit illegal.

Yeah it’s Javascript that’s the issue that can just take all this data in the client and send it wherever. And that’s exactly what’s happening.

tor-connected

You are unique!

A lot of those things are also required to render a webpage correctly.

International law doesn’t permit the blockading of humanitarian aid. Israel was allowed to board and inspect the vessel, but not block it from entry.

In you analogy, it’s not stickers, it’s faster cars.

Well that’s the point of contention.

Would you expect that if faster cars were banned, those owners would drive slower cars equally as fast as faster cars keeping the rate of speeding tickets?

Actually, yes! They might not go over the speed limit as much, but they’re likely to break it just as often. Just about every car can go over the legal speed limit, these owners don’t care as much about safety to they’re about as likely to break the law in a Lambo than in a BMW or a Renault.

• This is an extraordinary claim that requires definitive evidence

I’ve already given you a study that showed no changes before and after a ban. At this point the claim really isn’t so extraordinary, and I expect you to provide some statistic or evidence that a ban does work.

You can’t just come to a conclusion that “ultimately the owner is responsible” without evidence.

The owner being responsible is an assertion, not a conclusion. I’ve also already cited studies for you that found that how owners interact with and treat their dog is a very significant predictor when it comes to bite attacks.

I can respect the need to see statistics, but I don’t really think that if one side present evidence with statistics that are possibly flawed in some way, the correct solution is to call it unbelievable and side with the other side that hasn’t presented any concrete evidence or statistics showing anything definitive.

You’re making the logical error that the amount of bites indicates that a breed is dangerous. The claim I (and many others) make is that there’s no such thing as a dangerous breed.

As an analogy, suppose the government finds that cars with big flame stickers stuck on them get more speeding tickets, or end up in more accidents. Does the sticker make the car go faster? Would you expect the accident rate to go down if the government banned flame stickers? Or would you expect cars with lightning stickers to suddenly cause more trouble?

Ultimately, the owner is responsible and studies have shown that the owner is by far the strongest indicator of whether or not there will be problems.

The point is that there’s not really such a thing as a dangerous breed. There’s dangerous dog owners though, and that’s different. When you ban a breed, most of these owners will switch to a different breed (which inevitably rises in the dog bite statistics). That’s mostly what that study showed, despite the ban on dangerous breeds, there weren’t any fewer bite incidents.

it seems clear that any reduction in rate of ownership of dangerous breeds should reduce the overall bite rate

In theory, sure. But this assumes that certain breeds are inherently more dangerous, which is largely unproven. Most larger studies seem to dispute this.

(Coincidentally, France’s restriction applies to all dangerous breeds

France’s bite rate isn’t substantially lower than neighbouring countries that don’t have these bans. In practice, it seems these bans do little to nothing to reduce bites, which is an indicator that the breed isn’t the issue.

The OPs screenshot is the same review. It was posted on the same date, and the reviewer continued playing after placing the review. Their playtime was below OPs screenshot at the time of review, so the screenshot was taken at a later date.

It’s a pretty simple concept. Train any kind of model on only “good” data, and it fails to distinguish between that data and bad data.

Take image recognition. Feed it hundreds of images of an orange and ask it to find the orange. After training, it will be very good at finding that orange.

Then add a picture of a Pomeranian dog in there, and watch as the model confidently marks it as an orange.

The model should have been trained on lots of images that don’t feature what you want it to output as well, so it knows to distinguish that.

Because the UK (and the US and Russia) agreed to protect Ukrainian sovereignty after Ukraine willingly had the Soviet nuclear arsenal dismantled after the Soviet Union dissolved.

In 1994, Ukraine agreed to transfer these weapons to Russia for dismantlement and became a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, in exchange for economic compensation and assurances from Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom to respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within its existing borders.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

The other reason is basically the same reason why the UK got involved on the side of Poland in 1939.

This is a review for Geometry Dash: https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198850161831/recommended/322170/

I mean, you could only read it like that if you ignore the post’s context, as well as the next sentence that clearly talks about the movies.

The study measures the totals before and after the ban. If the totals did not change, then one can reasonably conclude there was little to no effect (as that was the point of the ban; reduce bite attacks). The only way you could still justify the ban worked is if dog ownership increased after the ban, which seems unlikely (and iirc the study touches on that).

One would expect that this sort of statistic would be easy to find if it were true, given the advocacy of bully-breed groups.

I mean ultimately the burden of proof isn’t on them. There are some statistics that seem to support them. If thess BSL bans worked, one would expect evidence to show that they did, but that’s seemingly completely absent too. The vast majority of independent organisations seem to be against these bans.

If these bans worked, where are the statistics that show they do? What about the myriad of studies saying bite incidents are caused by neglect of the dog rather than breed?

Left is always supposed to be off. If not, the UI/UZ designer who made the page messed up.

What I mean by immediate effect is that a switch is supposed to toggle something instantly. Checkboxes are more common in forms, where you expect to submit your choices later.

Switches with more than one option are generally bad, agreed with you there.

At the time the prevalent belief initially was that the mighty British empire, together with the French, would beat back the Germans and Italians. Remember that these countries had fought a destructive war already which an at the time more powerful German empire lost. US sentiment also was against direct involvement in the war, and many in cabinet were more concerned with the rising threat to their west: Japan.

That’s not to say the US did nothing. The US supplied China via the Burma road agains the Japanese, supplied the Allies with arms and they also did the destroyers-for-bases deal. The US also held their first peacetime draft in 1940, well before it officially entered the war.

At the time, the belief was that the US would have to defend the west (against Japan) and that the UK could defeat the Germans. It’s why the US moves the fleet to Hawaii, to hopefully pressure the Japanese into backing down.

The US had both domestic and geopolitical reasons to not declare war immediately. It’s fair to criticize that, but to characterize the US as doing nothing in that time is just a falsification of history.

The UK could, if Russia would stop interfering with Ukraine.

It’s real. Batman #98.