Hey, they are the fluffiest critters ever among those that ran over me. They don't even tickle, just a smooth touch.

Developes feelings for the house centipedes

Labeling one side as terrorists while both are employing the terrorism has just a difference of political power, and that is even in some parts of the world only. Also, lets not forget the side that is not officially labeled a terrorist organization has been employing the terrorism to a greater extent with much more intensity for 3 quarters of a century and only for vile outcomes rather than as crappy tools for an understandable cause.

The non-intense part is an actual requirement for land development. I don't think their zionist settlers would like the experience of trucking beach house materials under fire or while facing blockades. Those are reserved for the aid convoys.

Not now John we gotta get on with this.

In practicality, and this life-and-death is a matter of practicality rather than preference, betrayal beats zealous genocide support.

Even as someone from outside, I can say the U.S.' best bet is Biden again. His international politics are no different than most U.S. presidents that came to office in the last century, but at least U.S. citizens are getting a nice end of the mostly shit-ended sticks for a change. And that goes for all the current immigrant peoples in the U.S., too, although for many the reason for leaving their homes can be traced back to deep-rooted U.S. foreign policy.

What do they have with Trump? Persecution during immigration while their home countries will be kept bombed to hell or stripped and exploited by the ongoing U.S. policy.

I'm not porposing or defending any approach here, where do you draw the line between the decision to address the underlying issues and catering to creating isolated environments to shelter the marginalized groups, tho?

I get that taking a breather in a safe environment to help with self-esteem and love is critical so as not to sink below that threshold of constantly feeling overwhelmed that is different for everyone, and I'm in no way seeing a one-day thing as anything else, but as public coordination events, how do you draw the line between the two I mentioned above? First example of going beyond giving breathing room to making a segregation comes to mind as the "pink buses" in which only women are allowed to be feel safe from men that some right-wing politicians bring up from time to time as a similar topic on addressing the cause vs treating the symptom or even causing different problems under such intention.

Ah, I didn't wanna give the impression of completely ordinary so as to be a character from Dostoevsky's novels, but I guess how I wrote it can easily take the topic there. Just wanted to make the distinction between "you are someone special's descendant, albeit without yours' or viewers' knowledge till the story ends" vs "you are someone special only through your efforts, even among the specialty group of ninjas, heroes, devil fruit users etc." The first one has been pretty much trodden with either last minute revelations justifying huge power-ups, or setting the stage for the plot armor of the protagonists.

I'd argue that the will of ancestors is different, and even their effect on Luffy's development is rather through direct action than just being related by blood. Without Dragon directly interfering, Buggy would have got Luffy in Loguetown. "Strong blood" was never something openly used in One Piece before, even more it was pretty much criticized through some villains like Axe-hand Morgan's fascist ideology and the showcases of Celestial Dragons.

The illusion of re-emerging endurance through hardships all over again just thanks to willpower is just as a basic, and as a tired trope for plot as the use of ancestry, but it can nevertheless result in a good variety of situations like the post-Shabody separate training arc, and is a much more comfortable aspect to cheer for a protagonist through.

Having the ancient and most powerful spirit emerge through the protagonist to beat up the bad guys is pretty much against how Luffy's efforts are portrayed. Yes, Luffy does not acknowledge such a thing and plays the usual fool to not understand it, but for all intents and purposes, except for one to subvert later for a possible plot-twist, Luffy is regarded as Nika by the other characters and the audience. In my opinion, Luffy should have been rejecting such a thing as reincarnation or even personification of someone else outright so as to assert the quality, fun, and morals of his own efforts than to utilize ancient bloodline powers, like rejecting Raleigh's offer for the explanation of One Piece and being played favourites as well as being deprived of the fun of overcoming things by oneself.

Inherited will being a culture, thought structure, morals, or aspirations vs being some ancient person's spiritual being has been pretty distinct for me in One Piece till about Nika exposè.

It is a taste issue, and as far I can see you try to help out with the reframing the problem I have to resolve it, and I thank you for that.

Oh no, not at all. First, you need to download the dependencies tho. Start with downloading more ram.

Tbh, uBlock Origin + brain.exe has been carrying the heaviest load for years for me. Windows Defender would catch 80% of the occasional slips where brain.exe wanted some risks, too.

Tbh I am really pissed about this in One Piece's rather latest track. The will of D. and people with the D. names could have been pretty ordinary people with strong wills, good nature, social skills etc. opposing the injustices we see in the manga, but lately with all this reincarnation of Sun God Nika stuff, it is no different than what Naruto and Sasuke have been reduced to.

I know it is 25 years in the making and cultures and perceptions change, along with perception of tropes in entertainment, but can we at least go beyond this "the special one" or "the chosen one" stories?

I also know Oda has been a spectacular surpriser and a mangaka that can connect and change most trivial things to most core stuff to do unforeseen changes to the core of his world-crafting, but my doubts in One Piece being as unique as it was before the New World has been increasing these last 10 years of commercialization of it.

Turkey #1... wait, which 3 countries are outdoing us in inflation?

Well, if you allow CELL to gobble up that one android...

In Turkey, it is his job to be on that train. And they surely love their jobs.

We are all a rookery of crookery penguins on this blessed day.

Same here after all these years and a whole slew of anime. Haven't seen Detroit Metal City, tho. Will check it out.

Thanks a lot, this makes a whole lot more contextual awareness for the situation.

Thanks for the detailed explanation about publicly traded companies, but what I wonder is the privately owned ones being forced to sell out, if there is such a thing.

For example, lets say Proton is owned by a few shareholders or just one, and it is not openly traded unless the shareholders make personal agreements to sell out or anything like that. If Google came with a truckload of cash and told these shareholders to sell their shares to Google, can they simply refuse the offer no matter how big is the pile of cash or the benefits of the offer, or do they have to find a legal reason to keep their shares? I mean, even the question sounds stupid and the answer should be "yeah you can just keep your share and run the company however you like, as long as you don't go public listing", but with all the concerns about the buyouts talked all around this last few years, the premise looks like it is hard to hold out.

What is this buying out talked about something not escapable if not some legal reorganization is made? It has been being talked about other companies, too, and it sounds like if you have a form of a company, you can't legally refuse monetary offers from someone to buy your company.

Is there such a legal mechanism that forces an owner to sell out if an offer is made, or is this more about proofing a company against CEO/shareholder personal sell out decision?

Not even taxed. Outright banned. What happened to governments regulating and revising car safety standards? They can even collect all these back and offer change into more environment and traffic friendly ones, like they were doing 10 years ago.

They may be overcharging, they are most likely overcharging if it can make a billionaire among them. Is it anti-consumer? In the context of current capitalist economy and comparable, even rival companies present? And if you have reading comprehension, you'll notice that there is a paragraph in all of my comments to you mentioning Gaben's yatches being obscene and shouldn't be. Anyway, skip to the part below, ending it there:

I never had a dream of becoming a billionaire, or dreaming about those yatches. Or being aspired to and been jealous of through riches. As you have noted, I'm from Turkey and we don't have the fucking American Dream here, dude. But what we had is: Cheapest gaming PC game purchases thanks to Steam for all the goddamn years. Even when we had quite a competitive economy before our glorious economist-god-emperor Tayyip fucked our economy, we were able to buy your 60€ all-stores-including-own-store triple-A games for like 5€-10€. Indie games? Man you won:t believe it, but cents. Now you make the calculations about how much Steam exploited us.

Anyway, I, too, can enjoy this criticism-deflection game, so here goes my response to your personal background digging: Go suck Tim Swiney's epic child-addiction-exploitating-Fortnite-whatever-the-fuck-ever-is-exclusive-dick after you find solace that you supported grinding down the best gaming store that is practicing the most pro-customer policies reliably in a stable and self-sustaining capacity over more than a decade and a half.