Definitely menus.

Most of the run/gun aspects are very similar regardless of which Borderlands game you’re playing.

BL3 was by far the best for menus. Not perfect, but a lot less cumbersome than the previous games.

I want to go back and play through the whole series again, but the nuances of the older games that were fixed in the more recent games always throws me.

I play on PC and it’s very very obvious that kb/mouse was an afterthought for some of the games… I just hate doing fps with a joystick/thumbstick.

Either way, I’ve redeemed this for all of my copies of Borderlands. So the next time I log in, I should have golden keys for days.

The movie, that came out like, a month ago?

I was always planning to watch it when it went to streaming/home video kind of release. I rarely go to the theatre anymore.

I’m also waiting on the same for the new Deadpool + Wolverine movie…

Considering the little I’ve heard about it so far (trying to avoid spoilers), it seems like I should skip the Borderlands movie, but I’ll probably still watch it.

What if this lifetime is also a dream.

Like inception.

As a technologist and a casual photog, I’ll chime in.

The answer is optics.

Previously, phones had basically one set focal point, and everything from a certain distance to infinity would be in focus. There was no way to adjust our change it, because the optics were basically sandwiched against the sensor.

More modern phones can do some level of focus, which allows focus to be set much closer to the phone. At first, this didn’t really introduce much thickness, and phones were fairly thick in the first place (at least, compared to today)… So it was merely a matter of shifting some things around to make everything work.

Now? Between the pulls for longer battery life, with the relatively stale battery technology in use (we haven’t seen any significant uplift in battery storage density in a while, some might be coming, but they’re not here - so the only way to add battery is to install a larger one); the push for thin/light phones, and the push for better image quality in phones (4k video, bigger zoom, bigger image sizes, etc)… Everything has culminated into adding space for optics, and making everything else slimmer. The only other area where the phone is growing in size, is the screen.

Personally, I don’t understand the race to be the thinnest phone. I don’t give a shit. I don’t want to be holding a piece of paper that makes calls. Back in the day, even the very chunky handsets of landline phones were not comfortable to hold for extended periods of time, and there were attachments you could get to make them bigger, so it would be more comfortable to hold the already massive (by today’s standards) handset against your shoulder. Ever seen someone try to hold a cellphone with their shoulder? It’s not comfortable.

… I know what they will say… Bluetooth! Headsets! (Blah blah blah). Handsets existed for landlines too. Nobody bought them. IMO, the only reason people use Bluetooth for calls is because they bought the BT headset for something else (like music). BT headsets for only calls were pretty much only purchased by the same dicks that bought headset landline phones.

Anyways, I’m off topic now. While I don’t get the compulsion to make phones thin, I understand that optics need space and it’s the reason why there’s a camera bump. Companies wanted thinner phones but needed space for optics, so this was the only way to accomplish both.

Yep, there’s actually quite a few more than what I mentioned, if you get into the advanced dialogs.

IMO, it’s unnecessarily complicated, but given that NTFS is used for network file sharing in large companies, I get why it’s so crazy. They probably demand those kinds of granular permissions.

I know Linux is a lot simpler. Just read/write/execute, and a single group, single owner, and a setting for “everyone else” kind of thing, which is generally sufficient for 90% of use cases.

I’m a sysadmin and I work with Windows a lot.

The short version is that only the users granted permission to a given set of files can access those files. With NTFS permissions it’s… Complicated. You can have explicit permission to a file, or implied permission via a group that you’re a part of, or some combination of those things. You can also have read, but no write. You can have append but not create, you can have delete, but not list. It’s a lot of very granular, very crazy permissions.

There’s also deny permissions which overrule everything.

What has likely happened is that the posters user account doesn’t have implied or explicit permission to the file, but if you sign in as an administrator, even if the administrator doesn’t have permission to read/write/append/delete the file, the administrator has permission to take ownership of a file, and as owner, change the permissions of a file. Being owner doesn’t mean you can open/read/write/append/delete anything, you can just change permissions and give yourself (or anyone else) permissions to the file.

Changing ownership is a right which, as far as I’m aware, cannot be revoked from admin level users. They can always change ownership. Owners of files cannot be denied the right to change the permissions of a file as far as I know. This will always result in some method by which administrative level accounts can recover access to files and folders.

In my experience, exceptions exist but are extremely rare (usually to do with kernel level stuff, and/or lockouts by security/AV software).

The poster might legally and physically own the device and all the data contained therein, and may have an administrative level account on that device, but the fact is, their NTFS permissions are not set to allow them access to the data. The post they’re replying to is trying to let them know how to fix it by using an administrative level account and they’re not tech-savvy enough to follow along.

I don’t blame them. File permissions issues are challenging even for me, and I fully understand the problem.

The act of someone sitting at a brand new Mac, with a never-before-used interface, and immediately clicking the computer icon to drag it to the trash, is such a powerful image for me.

The statement of, “this is what I think of this computer” is so strong, because I have to believe that whomever did that must have been a tech person to be at the event; but perhaps they just thought it was a shortcut and didn’t like shortcuts on their desktop so they tried to remove it? Like, you can do this with Windows… Because the computer object (in Explorer) is immutable, and any reference to it is simply a link to that object.

I prefer the thought of them just being like “this computer is trash” and doing that, and causing the system to crash.