Well an assassin kills his targets. He doesn’t kill every innocent bystander he sees. In the first game, the guard enemies you see are your colleagues who are fully under the impression that you are a traitor who killed the empress. They are functionally your enemies during the game, but they are ultimately the good guys.
The rebel leaders, especially the admiral are going to complain about you killing who are also basically his men.
It was unfortunately a product of its time where moral systems ultimately amounted to binary good guy/bad guy outcomes which was the style at the time. The system was designed to make you want to play it twice. If you’re used to the more modern moral ambiguity in today’s RPGs I don’t think anyone can blame you for disliking it.
Are you commenting from the year 2007?
Corporations haven’t ditched windows because Active Directory and Group Policy had no equal. Now that Microsoft has slowly pushed everybody to cloud based identity, there’s really nothing stopping you from using something other than AD or even Entra ID
Yes and it’s so funny to me as somebody that works in datacenter and cloud infrastructure for public apps for a living. All the gatekeeping is done by hobbyists without the faintest clue but all the confidence in the world, or click ops internal IT sysadmins grossly overestimating their self worth.
Be safe, ask questions, and fuck what the haters think.
You mean like… the article you’re commenting on does?
None of that is remotely true lol. You don’t get a passkey, you generate. Nothing is “sent” to you at any point in time, it has nothing to do with email.
There’s a hassle?
This article isn’t behind a paywall, you just have to make an account.
Lmao bringing up what Waymo said in their public statement a third time will not help your case like it’s a magical incantation. Nowhere does it say Waymo was able to identify or reach out to an owner, nor does the article speak of an owner who was reached out to by Waymo. Some canned text on a public statement is not an authoritative source of information on an individual animal you donut.
Unless you can find the part in this article where somebody calls the cat a pet, or identifies literally anybody as an owner, you’re just hallucinating what isn’t there. Are you an AI? It would explain the emoji.
Ah yes, local strays get tagged and collared and have bells.
Correct. Neighborhoods cats with no owner often have people take them to vets and get vaccinated/spayed. This keeps the cat from having its ears clipped, being dumped in a different neighborhood, or even being put down. They would want any animal control to know they’ve done this, so they need to display the tag. For this they buy a collar, as tags can’t be suspend in midair by magic. The fact that the collar they bought has a bell on it is unremarkable, many cat collars have little bells in them.
They also have their ‘family’ members who run the bodega they live out of get upset when other people start memecoins to exploit the situation when they are not family
The cat doesn’t live out of the bodega, it lives on the street. It visits the bodega. More hallucinations from you. Did you even read the article? Or just Waymo’s public statement. Do you work for Waymo?
I’m very glad you’re done trying to pin the fault of this tragedy on innocent people. We can revisit it if any information comes out that supports your assertion.
Your cat
Whose cat was it again? Whose fault is it?
Whose responsibility would it be to keep the cat inside?
Nowhere in that article does it say anything about the cat being a pet, nor does it state that the cat has an owner. It references an outside statement from Waymo where they, like you, appear to assume the cat has an owner without anything to indicate that, but nobody who spoke to The Guardian for that article said a single thing about the cat being a pet or having an owner.
The cat was very obviously a local stray. Doubling down and insisting there’s an owner without any proof of an owner existing in that article will not make reality change. Unless you can find in that article where it says the cat was a pet, or identifies an owner, you’re just making things up.
The article is relaying information from an authoritative group of people who are informing the article, (those who know the cat and are being interviewed for the purpose of this article) and Waymo (Who is unfamiliar with the cat besides the point that they’ve confirmed they ran it over, and did not speak to the Guardian for this article).
There is no mention of an owner from that authoritative group of people.
The letter sent out by Waymo is not an authoritative source of information for this cat, nor is it asserting that the cat does in fact have an owner. It’s just an uninformed assumption by a third party with no first hand knowledge of this cat in order to cover a base because it’s boilerplate. An owner is mentioned in it for the same purpose as the phrase “To whom it may concern”
You have got to work on your media literacy.
Nowhere in the article does it mention the cat having an owner, besides the statement released by Waymo.
The linked Article doesn’t say anything about any pets. The quote you used is from Waymo, who didn’t know anything about the cat besides the fact that their robot car ran it over.
The tag in the picture is a rabies tag, not an ownership tag. The collar is to hold the rabies tag, and the bell is attached to the collar.
The article has quotes from several community members grieving the loss of the cat, yet not from any supposed owner and doesn’t even mention any owner. The cat is very obviously a local stray.
Yes I read it, there is no owner mentioned in that article, and it was very obviously a stray cat.
Your quote is just an example of the fact that Waymo has a canned, boilerplate template ready to go for when they run over an animal.
There are no pets mentioned in the linked article.
Who told you that cat was someone’s pet?
What importance exactly? Besides identity and policy… what does it do better than some third party software at this point?