Oh they meant less work for them. Not for us peons, that would be silly.

I think it ends sort of like the first one. It wraps things up but also sets up for a third arc.

I’m fine with that. Thanks for the details!

Hell, you can manipulate what people see with their own eyes.

What I meant was that any recorded evidence will be tough to take on face value. One thing is manipulating, other is manufacturing with striking accuracy. While there are still signs, it’s much more subtle now.

Good to hear the story is good!

The end definitely set up for a third act. Hopefully it gets made.

Not too much of a cliffhanger I hope? As a PC player I likely won’t ever play any further sequels :(

Having a reliable source that you trust certainly goes a long way. Not fool proof, but I’d say good enough. Still good idea not to consider it a source of absolute truth and to continue to think critically.

Otherwise, eye witnesses will be crucial. “Pics or it didn’t happen” is a relic of a bygone age.

Both Horizon games got ported to PC.

It doesn’t have the exact vibe you are describing, but basically it is set at the point of time that we clearly had an apocalypse but it is over and nature and humanity started over. And you slowly uncover what happened as the game goes.

I didn’t care much for the gameplay (though it did grow on me in time), generic open world stuff but the main story and worldbuilding made up for that a hundred times for me.

Can’t talk on the second one as I didn’t play it yet.

What I meant is that some people just don’t want to give ther money to Mullvad, since some of it will end in his pocket to finance a political party they don’t agree with.

Not sure how involved he is but I guess as a co-founder he is bound to be getting some of the Mullvad money

To be the inteligent person in a team of idiots is certainly one of the worst things that could happen to you.

A symbolic exemption was adopted for encrypted communications—though in practice, service providers do not scan these anyway.

Well I guess that’s something at least.

This truly is bonkers.

Although a majority of voting Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) actually opposed the regulation (314 against, 276 in favor, 17 abstentions), the motion to reject it failed to secure the required absolute majority of 361 votes.

More people is against it than in favor, but the number of people against it is not sufficient so it gets passed? How can that ever be possible?