“Decent reviews”, but it’s a 71 on Metacritic. While in a normal world a 71/100 probably would be “decent”, I, and I think the majority of people, see a 71/100 and assume it’s a steaming pile, because of how absurdly skewed review scores are.

For Voyager specific questions, you might find [email protected] more effective in the future - it’s got a dedicated community.

Upper right corner - Click your username, then Settings. There’s an Avatar and Banner upload option there.

If you enjoy the old school vibe, City of Heroes has been revived through a community effort, and is free with all of the original content plus some new stuff. This has been given official blessing so it’s not going to disappear suddenly.

I’d give him or her a pass

I know what you mean, but ‘give them a pass’ typically means to overlook bad behavior and not hold them accountable, not to pass on electing them.

I honestly think if politicians had to live solely on the median income in the state or country they represent, we’d be seeing a lot more legislation that’s in the interest of the working class. Or a lot more corruption and under-the-table dealings, but certainly one or the other.

Shut up and take my money.

The term is connected to misogyny. If someone just wants to give up dating and that’s the end of it, there’s no reason for anyone to be ticked off by that idea. It’s the doomer attitude surrounding it and the effects of it that cause problems. You used the term ‘black pill’, which has specific connotations - it’s not simply choosing to give up dating.

The term black pill, first popularized in the 2010s on the incel blog Omega Virgin Revolt, refers to accepting the futility of fighting against a feminist system. Blackpilled incels are encouraged to either commit suicide or “go ER”/be a “hERo,” referencing Elliot Rodger’s 2014 Isla Vista murder spree that has been called an act of misogynistic terrorism.

(Source: Britannica)

So, Primer, then? Where you can’t return to a point in time before the time machine was constructed?

On the morality point, I’d argue that we should spend the money to rescue any person if we have the money/means, and it can feasibly happen without excessive risk to other lives, otherwise we’re assigning monetary value to human lives.

Resources are finite, though. If rescuing one person requires, say, 10 units of resources, but rescuing 10 others require only 1 unit of resources, isn’t choosing to rescue the 1 over the 10 already placing relative value on human lives, by declaring them to be 10x as valuable as the others? This is obviously operating on the assumption that we don’t have the resources to rescue everyone who needs rescuing.

My real wonder would be if the majority of Americans would okay the amount of money it would cost to save that one man?

Depends where the money is coming from. Military budget? Absolutely. Being taken from social services and whatnot? No. The amount of money that would cost could save so many more lives if it was used for things here. Choosing to spend it on saving an astronaut rather than on, for example, feeding homeless people and distributing medication and disaster relief is like a version of the trolley problem where the trolley is already heading for the 1 person, but you have the option of switching it to the other track to kill more people if you want to. I’d have a really hard time calling that moral by any metric.

Also some absolutely great dialog / voice acting.

“You are WOEFULLY deficient in the ways of etiquette, BUT… you have a point.”

Not only that, it’s a meaningless requirement. There’s subs on Reddit that exist solely to farm karma. You make a post, everyone upvotes it, done.

You could just look up articles on his policies - given his high profile status, they’re all over right now.

Wow, there’s a series I haven’t thought about in like a decade. I recall really enjoying that game way back when, though.

There’s already services like Box.com that offer similar functionality for files.

As a suggestion, having an option to have the string deleted after it’s been accessed once would be nice as an extra layer of protection.

Not that I’d use this service for it, but I’ve had use cases for this sort of thing. It’s not so much about plausible deniability as OP wants to sell it as, but more about security. You send the locked link (or a PW protected file or whatever) via, say, email, and the password through a text message. Then, in order for the data to be stolen, the attacker would need access to both of those, rather than only one. It’s niche, but I’ve needed to do it for my job before, so I can at least see the point.

Makes privacy-focused service

Disallows access through VPNs

Mate…

The question wasn’t, “Could this be used as evidence?”, it was “Would this exonerate you?”

Maybe we’re answering two different questions, but I don’t see this being enough to exonerate anyone without some supporting evidence to go with it.