icermiga

Each account has an allowance of five devices, although you can de-register and re-register devices as much you want, it only takes clicking. So yes.

The way they were infuriating motivated the player and makes it satisfying when you beat them, so being annoying was absolutely the right choice. The last Pokemon games I played were on DS where your "rivals" were nice and supportive and non-annoying and they were boring and I would have fastforwarded them if I could have.

Yeah Navi is much less intrusive than people remember, she was really well done. And yeah Navi is concise and has a little personality whereas Fi is rambling and repetitive and just completely emotionless (yeah I know lacking emotion was intentional but that doesn't make it enjoyable)

The human checkout gives a better service but the shop does not charge me differently for different checkouts. For shoppers, the equation is simple.

Okami is "Zelda-like" in its kind of medieval fantasy, action-adventure presentation, and in the way towns and NPCs feel, and perhaps in some of its bosses, but really it's not all that much like a Zelda game. Okami is an quite standard all-ages real-time-battles RPG, whereas Zelda usually have no RPG mechanics - usually Zelda enemies are defeated in just one or two hits, with little or no stats, points or inventory. Zelda games usually have a lot of focus on puzzles and dungeons, or dungeon-like outdoor areas, whereas Okami has no puzzles. On the other hand Okami is obviously very steeped in (often silly or humorous) Japanese folklore, whereas Zelda is very much less wacky and often a little more emotional and dramatic, and has its own bespoke theming.

I liked Okami but I felt it was paced really quite slowly, and the battles/enemies were a little too RPG-like for my taste, as in taking quite a lot of real time for even weak enemies. I felt it lacked the mechanical polish that Zelda usually does: I felt generally the movement was a little slow and difficult (except in very open areas) and most disappointing of all was the frankly poor recognition of what brush move I'm drawing.

TL;DW: In which Moonie considers 1) actual California legal definitions, 2) exactly what was said in Jobst's, SomeOrdinaryGamer's and The Completionist's videos, and 3) innocence until proven guilty, and importantly points out that tax filings can and often are inaccurate (due partly to the law being extremely complex) and are corrected/settled afterwards (possibly with a simple small fine), and concludes that:

1. charity fraud is plausible but is only a midemeanour

2. embezzlement is not substantiated by publicly available information - saying you don't spend the funds on expenses and then spending funds on expenses would probably be charity fraud rather than embezzlement

3. missing funds is not substantiated by publicly available information - most of the publicly available information is the tax returns but tax returns are not really evidence of your accounts because they might be wrong, that would be quite common and would not be serious legal trouble.

and that Jobst and SomeOrdinaryGamer are comically lacking in legal understanding and knowledge when you look at the seriousness of the accusations they make.

I don't mind what sex my character is, my character is not me and I don't see why I would mind what sex my character is. Like, especially in a video game, the scenario is usually quite fantastic and nothing that my character does (e.g. acrobatics, shooting, running for more than 18 seconds without collapsing out of breath, etc.) gives me a sense that they are a version of me. My character should be random or whatever the writers thought would be most appropriate for the themes or story or whatever.

(I did not watch the linked video)

Also, as I understand it, $600,000 is not all the money. Already last year's tax filings showed more capital than that. The charity also has some money deducted for "costs" that is not broken down, and although I'm an outsider it doesn't seem very cool because the charity hadn't actually been doing anything so I can't imagine donors feeling like costs of that size are warranted.

Obviously coding this up isn't accidental, so I guess they mean that activating the feature was accidental (not very reassuring) but also it's kind of hard to believe that even that was accidental. Any very basic QA would have prevented that. It was probably deliberately testing the waters.