Yea, that makes sense, there’s no point banging your head about it unless there’s a compelling reason to stay, especially after 6 weeks.

Manipulation is particularly difficult because they might not be fully aware that they’re doing it and they can obviously get better at it every time you bring it up if you are being honest and they’re not.

Sounds like it’s time to break this off, best of luck.

Oh, nice, I hear good things about the bolt.

I think that last aptera bankruptcy happened about a decade ago under different leadership, before they had all the manufacturing partners, business plan of today and definitely before this round of pre-orders/investment.

As far as I understand, that was basically a couple guys building an awesome car that they didn’t have the business infrastructure for. It seemed easier to source parts until they had to do it.

Ramping production is still slated for ~'24, which has been delayed before I believe from last year, which isn’t great.

They’ve had mostly finished prototypes driving around for a while now and direct investment/partnerships, so I don’t see them going bust too soon.

They have a lot of pretty regular updates with production status and media updates on their website and YouTube channel to check out.

I’m hopeful. I want the thousand miler.

Solar powered, self-reparable cars are where the future is.

I don’t understand why people don’t think you were not being manipulated here, this sounds like typical gaslighting.

They sound self-absorbed, so they see things their own way and want you to also see things their way, even if that means changing what happened.

After only 6 weeks and at least three attempts at manipulation, you should calmly and plainly tell them with very specific undeniable examples that you realize they are changing the facts in these stories to get you to agree with them and you need them to stop that.

If they have a rational, calm response to you explaining why you need them to stop gaslighting you, then okay.

If they ovverreact or get unreasonably angry and immediately blame you(“well, you…”) then you should probably stop spending less time with that person, better none.

I second aptera

That doesn’t sound like engaging plot delivery on part of the creator, and the gameplay wasn’t my style at all, although I did like the character, creature and world design and am interested to see how this guy presents the lore.

As it was introduced to me, it’s a guy who enjoyed playing but really enjoyed the main story and wen into a deep dive connecting every little scrap of lore to put together a full history.

I like that kind of stuff, so I’ll give it a whirl

I hear the lore’s really interesting and some guy linked me a YouTube channel full of elden ring lore so I might look into that.

But playing it, not so much.

Elden ring yawwwwn.

It’s beautiful, and it seems like an interesting world, but learning exactly how to dodgerollattack for every enemy with deliberately delayed reflexes is not my kinda fun.

Did - Lived abroad. Cheap, fun, good healthcare/dental, great new foods

Acquired - electric toothbrush, immediate halt of dental decay

Exact same games for me, I started with dead cells and a hundred hours in was like well I guess I do like roguelites after all, Even though I had always thought I didn’t.

And then I played Hades and was absolutely blown away, I love the stories inside and the action.

Boy, if you’re considering hollow knight, you will have zero regrets, it’s so fun and so eerie.

Soulslikes still make me yawn in comparison, dead souls 1, 2 and elden ring.

Maybe one day

That’s a vaguely optimistic way to think about civil war, but I’m doubtful that

1. people perpetually scared enough to find owning guns in urban environments necessary are going to disagree with the fear-mongering rhetoric a president-king invokes.

2. owning guns translates into any sort of effective resistance

3. it was worth killing children and civilians for decades in the hopes of an eventual opportunity to fight something

4. civilians with their own guns won’t be choosing their own targets

5. a sliver of power finally used to destroy a country is more important than the peaceful maintenance of representative democracy.

Mass executions being “barely in” the scope of presidential immunity means that even by your interpretation, mass executions are covered by Presidential immunity

Individual interpretation is the problem.

The president thinks to themselves “yea, that’s barely in” and then it’s official and covered.

Political suicide? Could be. Maybe not.

At the least, mass executions will be part of the official US presidential record. If they are carried out those people are dead and civil erupts, and if they aren’t the president is immune and the person(s) who disobeyed him is subject to execution for treason.

Say the president signs an executive order explicitly stating that any act is considered a presidential duty during the day in which a president conducts a minimum of one official act.

Then literally everything is official no matter what.

Although that’s unnecessary with how the supreme Court has defended official presidential immunity:

On page 30-31 of the SC decision, the supreme Court makes it known that because they have decided the US president is entitled to immunity and specifically cannot “be held criminally liable” for “certain official acts”(interpreted however broadly one would like), examining an unofficial act related to an official act, like legally examining whether or not dumps knew inciting a violent coup was illegal, “would permit a prosecutor to do indirectly what he cannot do directly- invite the jury to examine acts for which a president is immune from prosecution”

This means that any unofficial part of any official conduct, both interpreted however you see fit, cannot be legally scrutinized as scrutiny of an “unofficial act” could result in the legal scrutiny of an “official act” for which the supreme Court has decided there can be no legal scrutiny or prosecution anymore.

So, “hey, drowning that bag of puppies doesn’t seem very official”.

“Yea, too bad we can’t do anything about it since he has to sign a bill into law this afternoon”.

Yyyup.

Even when dumps was elected or roe was overturned, I was very disappointed but rationalized that voting could turn it around, even with a crappy voting system like the US has.

But granting absolute legal immunity to the most powerful branch of government is so broad and so reckless that I no longer clearly recognize any more safeguards on what can happen overnight to the US government.

Counterargument: The US dollar hasn’t budged since the ruling, so for some reason nobody else is worried yet.

I don’t really understand that.

Unofficial duties especially are not discreetly outlined or prohibited, so anything the US president does during an official act becomes an official act That cannot be legally scrutinized or prosecuted.

The president is commander-in-chief of the US military.

So ordering the US Navy to bomb Seattle is an official, legal act.

The president receives ambassadors. If they decide to shoot someone while waiting for an ambassador to arrive, or set a wildfire in a field of horses while on a “brainstorming jog” for that meeting, that shooting or arson is part of their official duty.

The State of the Union is an official act, so the president burning the flag while garroting an orphan on national television is now an official, legal act immune from legal liability.

Likely the same reason you believe replacing a successful incumbent with “generic Democrat” is politically advantageous: manipulated faith in popular conservative media.

Presidential polls are absurd propaganda at this point, and I guess you’re referring to the same two clips fox news hasn’t stopped running since the debate rather than to his obvious first term track record of “being old and still reliably and actively passing progressive legislation”.

He already won against trump, he regularly passes progressives legislation, you vote for Biden and get Harris anyway if you want a backup.

I can’t imagine how abandoning a proven candidate who beat trump before inspires political confidence if you haven’t been successfully manipulated to trust in the reliability of conservative media instead of years of reality.

Replacing the major candidate who already passed significant democratic legislation for 4 years is unlikely to result in greater Democratic faith or voter galvanization.

Harris certainly does not have that kind of momentum or support.

Any sort of candidate scramble now is all but forfeiting the 2024 election to trump.

Democrats already functionally control the Senate and have for biden’s four presidential years; I can’t see how nervously replacing Biden wins them any more seats, even optimistically.

That said, by the numbers, keeping the house majority and packing the court is more likely than a complete constitutional rewrite, a strategy I used as an example to show just how bleak the chance of restoring the us balance of executive power is.

Live abroad(I do this a lot anyway), apply for asylum internationally if civil war/ presidentially decreed assassinations are carried out

Two salient points:

This has not already happened in Russia.

In Russia, Vladimir Putin does not legally have absolute immunity.

China would have been a better example, since the Communist party is above the law and xi did abolish term limits for himself.

In the US, a president could not pardon themselves for state crimes, and the president murdering someone would have been a prosecutable state crime until this decision.

Not so anymore.

Didn’t turn out great, but is definitely worth watching.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRQQtd1KYXQ&t=644

Absolute immunity is exactly how genocide and civil wars are facilitated.

I doubt it will get as far Rwanda better of societal complexity, but if someone awful is elected and they decide to execute trans, or arab, or left handed people, or decides to murder anyone themselves, there’s no reason why they should consider the legal allowance of or consequences of their actions before taking action and no way outside of specific new amendments to scrutinize, prosecute or guard against that action in the future.

The states now have to rely on the personal judgments and courage of everyone under the commander in chief, which is everyone, to refuse to carry out atrocities.