Having not read TFA and barely skimmed TFS, I do feel like adding an anecdote here regarding American culture. I have many friends that brew beer. They generally enjoy the process and really like sharing their beers with their friends, even those of us who don't brew. Sure, they're probably more likely to get invited to bbqs and dinners, but it's not like they actively expect something in return. These guys are definitely treating more often than they are treated.

You may notice among your friends that some of them host bbqs or dinner parties more often than others. It's not that they're after some tangible gain from you, it's usually that they either genuinely enjoy cooking or your company. Or they want to sleep with your wife.

Definitely offtopic though... The question is what MMORPG do you recommend - not what social activities do you prefer.

Contrary to popular belief, you *can* play an MMO or other video games and still enjoy many weeknights of hanging out with other people or working on your hobbies.

Let's put it another way. If I'm good friends with my neighbors, spent last night playing trivia at the bar with a bunch of friends, have weekend plans to snowshoe if the weather permits it, and don't feel like wrenching on my project car, what MMO would you guys recommend for a relaxing evening at home?

I've played some WoT and truly enjoyed it - but it isn't the same experience you get from WoW. It's more similar to a game like League of Legends. Couple of major changes from a typical "MMO"

Each game is self-contained, makes it easy to play a game or two and log off instead of facing an open-ended grind. The flip side is you don't have any storyline to progress in, just more tanks to unlock, which I found rather tedius

You can only form teams of two or three people unless you get into forming companies.

Steep learning curve. Most MMOs hold your hand for a while in single player stuff. Expect at least an evening of getting beat on before you get the hang of it. On the bright side, nobody expects folks at Tier I to have the game mechanics nailed down.

...except for the infidels

You can't infect The Doctor.

They don't have sensors to identify landmarks - unless they're being piloted remotely by camera that's no use. Even so, if GPS is denied, they can use inertial navigation and compass heading to get pretty darn close to their failsafe waypoints.

You don't have to be liberal to dislike Rush Limbaugh...

I expect the safety testing is to see how the passengers in the car fare in the event of a rollover moreso than the likelihood of a rollover. You can analyze the impact raising the COG has on stability pragmatically, it's by no means an "apples and oranges" comparison. In any case, it's far less likely to roll than your average new SUV/CUV on the road today.

Man, you really dislike Tesla.

No no no, he doesn't tell *his* audience to get a job, he tells NPR's audience to get a job.

I think that's sort of the point... There have been three fires in the electric car that's only existed for 2 years with some 18k units on the road. We're seeing a big media hoopla about three incidents. Musk has already said three incidents is not significant enough to draw any conclusions. Yet Tesla still gets attacked for the fires. So, Musk pulls up some general statistics for internal combustion automobiles to show that - yeah, three is not a significant number. But, for some reason that's being intellectually dishonest because he's not taking into account fires for new cars. Cars in his class. Cars with four doors. Cars with a T in the name.

Yes, it's good to point out that the numbers include older cars that might be in poorer states of repair. It's also good to point out that the company is being attacked on an incident rate of 3. They're expected to respond to the hoopla over an incident rate that is impossible to draw any legitimate conclusions from anyway.

Yet, you're insisting they are intellectually dishonest... Go ahead and make a legitimate comparison. We're waiting...

If ever there were reason to question your statistics...

...not really at all where I was intending to go with that one. I was merely pointing out that if you ride for funsies you'll be on the bike a lot more time and thus more prone to injuries related to riding.

But, I can play ball in your court, too. Fact is, drivers are not often on the road because life requires it. They drive because it's more convenient than taking the bus or train, or because it's infeasable (or they're simply too lazy) to walk or bike. If, god forbid, you lost the ability to drive today, you would not be stuck immobile in your home until you die from hunger. Driving, for the vast majority of us, is optional. There's nothing wrong with that. I drive all the time and I love it.

I also bicycle a lot, and love that as well. I also don't simply ride for fun and neither do most bicycle commuters. We have somewhere we need to be because, as you've mentioned, life requires it. Roads are for transportation and are always filled with obstacles. Do you get angry at somebody stopping up a lane when they're parallel parking? A utility vehicle parked in a traffic lane working on a power line? A pedestrian with the gall to stop the entire road just so he can get to the other side? No, you work around it, because you're a driver in charge of your own destiny and not programmed to simply go from point A to point B at full throttle. Yet somehow, if it's a bicycle that you have to go around, he becomes some sub-human vermin who personally has it in for your precise driving time-table.

Bicycles and cars can absolutely co-exist, but it takes consideration from both sides.

..Why can't we all just get along?

There is never going to be "one answer" when it comes to getting around. Cars cause congestion and pollution. Bicycles are slow and lack protection from the elements. Busses and trains don't go where you want to go when you want to go there.

It doesn't mean you give up on the problem just because there isn't a silver bullet - you attack it from wherever you realistically can. Many cities have put bicycles to use for a significant amount of the year.

Keep in mind this is over four decades of cycling for sport. Any physical activity you do for sport is going to come with some risk of injury - be it bicycling, football (American or World), rock climbing, etc. It's not accurate to compare injuries obtained cycling for both sport and commute with injuries obtained while driving for the commute.

The other other difference is that - according to TFS - this wasn't simply criticism of government policies, it was unprofessional comments on individuals in office - including petty insults on physical appearance. If it was criticism of government, we'd all rightfully be up in arms, but it is plain and simple unprofessional behavior. It doesn't matter where you work, making petty derogatory comments in public about other people in the organization is unacceptable.