I felt like it was more of a jab at Miller’s obvious mountain of mental instability and desire to present themselves as weirdly as possible.

I believe you mean The Plague.

Is it just me or does he look like Martin Starr and Kumail Nanjiani had some weird Silicon Valley baby and let it get raised by TJ Miller?

That ship sailed like two variants ago.

That ship sailed like two variants ago.

Isn’t that already the GOP’s slogan?

Ehhh, I’m really not digging that style personally.

I’m betting the people of Lincoln, Nebraska might not be the most savvy...

It is a cheat because there’s essentially nobody outside the actual city which means there’s nobody to work or shop there that isn’t already part of that number, which isn’t the case for most other cities.

I mean ultimately, yeah that’s exactly what it is lol.

You’re looking at this the wrong way.

While you’re absolutely 1000% right about the first part, the second part is nearly as clueless as the typical cryptocultist bullshit lol.

I don’t think that’s entirely the intent. I think it’s more like “what if those stupid gems you get while playing that mobile game you play when you take a shit could also be used to get you something in this other game you’ll resume playing after you flush and wipe”.

Here’s the problem with this unrestrained metaverse (god I hate that word) bullshit:

E3's only real chance at coming back is if they basically just bat cleanup for everyone else and offer them a reasonable in-person venue for all the stuff they’ve already shown off themselves digitally.

The opening line is literally “Developer and publisher Epic Games will make its official foray into crypto with Grit...” as if they had anything to do with developing or publishing the game.

There was honestly no reason to even include Epic in that other article. They have nothing to do with the game beyond: “we’ll let them put it on our store as long as it follows the exact same rules as any other game”.

It’s not implied because they never insinuate that it’s an “either/or”, it could just as easily be interpreted as a “if this, why not this also”, which isn’t a choice thereby precluding the dilemma part of a false dilemma.