Yeah, like the other person also mentioned Counter Strike has had a major cheating problem for two decades and it’s still pretty bad today. Valorant is a very similar type of game: twitch shooter that needs fine motor skills and reaction time where one player can dominate an entire match. Valorant has a more intrusive anti-cheat and a lower ratio of cheaters but both game still have cheaters and cheats. People will pay large monthly fees for access to premium, not-yet-detected cheats to compete in competitive circuits.

What’s distinct about twitch shooters is that the core gameplay is very simple (just click on everyone’s head) but it can take thousands of hours to become really competitive at them. People who are not at the same level as their opponent may think they are cheating if they outskill them enough which leads to a feedback loop where new players feel like they need to cheat to be on equal footing because the other person HAS to be doing it too.

Players with a lot of hours can usually tell if someone is cheating with relatively high accuracy (except at very high skill levels where the cheaters are also incredibly good at the game) but newer players tend to consistently call cheats on players that are just better at the game. Competitive drive, lack of trust in other players playing fair and high skill ceilings all create the demand for cheats which in turn creates lucrative opportunities for cheat developers.

Ruining other people’s fun is also another popular reason like you said but I would say most cheaters justify it to themselves in some way.

Are you sure it was previously deleted stuff? I thought the same thing had happened to me but it was due to subreddits being private at the time of deletion then later coming out of private (some weeks or months later) preventing those then privated posts/comments from being deleted. I think running another automated tool again should do the trick at this point.

How do you feel about the rising islamophobia culminating in riots in the UK?

Here’s a picture of the 2 confirmed victims of that first strike you’re referring to.

Edit for sake of accuracy: Hezballah just confirmed the death of their targeted member after previously claiming he survived which should put death toll at 4 including a woman and the 2 mentioned kids along with 74 injured in the strike

At the time, I watched the video and I didn’t even catch the word so I thought the claim came from other footage and I was under the impression that it was deliberate misrepresentation of words. I went back to listen to the part where he says it but I still couldn’t make it out definitively (maybe that’s on me if you can).

Like clockwork

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/radio-free-asia/

This what scores you high credibility: “a less direct propaganda approach” for state sponsored media that is not critical of its sponsor

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/al-jazeera/

And this is what scores you mixed credibility: “exhibits significant bias against Israel” for state sponsored media that is not critical of its sponsor (updated in Oct 2023 naturally)

Now every article published by Radio Free Asia is deemed more credible than those published by Al Jazeera despite the former literally being called a former propaganda arm of the state in their own assessment. Yes, good is not the enemy of perfect but this is clearly an ideological decision in both instances.

CNN also scores as Mostly Factual based on “due to two failed fact checks in the last five years” one being a single reporter’s statement and the other being about Greenland’s ice sheets. That doesn’t seem like a fair assessment to me

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/left/cnn-bias/

So based on this I am supposed to conclude that Radio Free Asia is the most credible source out of the three at a glance.

Yeah, I’m not saying all their work is worthless and I know they’re good enough for the most extreme sources of misinformation but to paint entire publications as not reliable based on the assessment of couple laypeople with an inherently narrow worldview (at least a very American-centric one) is the opposite of avoiding bias in my opinion.

How do you verify who these people are? For all you know it’s just a bunch of fake names on a page.

I’m not talking about their source of funding but their qualifications in making claims with such broad implications. It looks like the pet project of some guy and couple faceless names who do not even claim any meaningful professional or academic experience.

Here’s an example from your link:

Jim resides in Shreveport, Louisiana with his two boys and is currently working toward pursuing a degree in Psychology/Addiction. Jim is a registered independent voter that tends to lean conservative on most issues.

Media Bias Fact Check, LLC is a Limited Liability Company owned solely by Dave Van Zandt. He also makes all final editing and publishing decisions.

Yeah, looks great to me.

That’s literally what the other source being added called Groundnews attempts to do.

Have you looked into who runs Media Bias Fact Check? It’s pretty much as opaque as it gets for a website that claim to have an authoritative list of biases for hundreds of websites. Just because it’s a meta source does not make it any more credible than any other random website.

That’s just introducing 2 more sources of bias

Fighting Hezballah in an attempt to destroy them or deal significant damage is practically mutually assurred destruction. There’s no real way they could wage the same type of warfare in Lebanon without incurring crippling damage to their infrastructure and a very high civilian death toll on both sides due to Hezb’s vast missile stockpiles and resources.

That attack is not justification for reckless escalation against the world’s most powerful non-state militia. There’s not much the Lebanese government can do to influence what would unfold and Hezb’s overall message since the start has been that hostilities in north are tied to hostilities in Gaza and will end once those end.

To me it does not seem like Hezb’s MO unless it was accidental and even then they’ve claimed responsibility for accidents in the past and there are miscellaneous militant groups that have launched missiles at Israel from Lebanon. Regardless of what you think of them, they generally act rationally from a military perspective. Either way, it’s rich for Israel to act appaled by this regardless of its perpetrators given that they struck a school killing a few dozen people in Gaza that same day.

How original

You wouldn’t have brought them up if you did not consider them to be at least equal. How many times did you ask people if they called the Palestinian cultural genocide a genocide in 2022 when they brought up Ukraine? Ask yourself why not. Goodbye.

You can apply all of this logic to the Palestinians as well starting from the ethnic cleaning in the 40s and subsequent cultural genocide that culminated in what were seeing today. Clearly it is much worse now compared to all other points barring certain events during the nakba. Everyone involved can see and articulate this which goes back to my point of all types of genocides not being equal.

You’re the one that compared them to imply that if you call this a genocide but not this a genocide then you are not consistent than proceeded to name 3 cultural genocides (with Ukraine’s having potential to become a full blown genocide depending on how the war plays out in my opinion).

If we can’t agree that a killings-based genocide is worse than a cultural erasure genocide then there’s nothing left to talk about. Unless you believe that if the Chinese began systematically killing Tibetans tomorrow that nothing would fundamentally change in your classification.

Genocide absolutely has to do with severity even if the technical criteria do not explicitly define said severity. That is why more human right lawyers have about been vocal about a genocide occurring in Gaza than have about one occurring Xinjiang. An assessment has to deem war crimes and human rights abuses to amount to genocide along with intent determined through those actions. I urge you to read the OHCHR’s report on Xinjiang and see how they choose their terms carefully despite having evidence for a array of different human rights abuses: https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/countries/2022-08-31/22-08-31-final-assesment.pdf