Well, like I said, there is still a chance of collateral damage, which is why there has been so much study to try and make sure that isn’t going to happen. We’ve been sitting on the ability to do this for a long time. As for chances of killing other species, I don’t think that is a risk from the method. They basically just breed mosquitoes of the targeted breed, and modify their genes so they can only have male offspring which can also only produce male offspring, etc.

The biggest reason it may be different this time is previously we were all like, “let’s exterminate dogs,” and it turns out dogs are important. This time is more like “let’s exterminate pitbulls.” There will still be plenty of mosquitos around if the plan is ever put into motion, we are only targeting a very small slice of them. That doesn’t mean there won’t be issues, it could well be just as big a mistake as all the previous times. But at least it is more likely to work out.

They couldn’t find me :(

Don’t forget Rogue Trader. Falls into many of the usual CRPG pitfalls, but is still definitely solid despite that.

As a big fan of Helldivers, they aren’t really that similar. They aren’t completely different either, but SM leans closer to a hack n’ slash. Definitely space for both in my rotation.

Yeah, my understanding is that SOP is to sue everyone even remotely, possibly, responsible, and the courts will work out who is and isn’t likely enough to have to actually defend themselves. This is just a part of the dance.

Neither happened. The restaurant isn’t owned by Disney, it is just listed on their website as a recommended place for allergy free dining, and they while own the property, it isn’t a part of the actual park, springs, etc. The family signed up for D+, and therefore “read” the terms, including the arbitration, and then used their D+ account to sign up for the trip, and had to “read” the terms again. The whole D+ argument wasn’t that they had to go to arbitration because they used the streaming, it was to show they had to go through the same terms multiple times and should be familiar with them. And basically, this is an issue with the labeling on the website, so would be covered by those rules. Who they really should be going after is the restaurant, if they made the same allergy free claims there. Agreements requiring arbitration are indeed bullshit and should be more limited, but this is proper enforcement of a shitty system, not the batshit insane enforcement it has been memed into.