Sunsofold

He's putting on his sleep mask

Pfft, organic.

Has anyone done a supercut of trump vs trump yet?

Seems like it goes way back. He tells people what they want to hear to get them to give him what he wants. Tax deals on development projects, investment in stupid businesses, any amount of stuff on a tab he'll never pay, and eventually votes.

The question of whether someone buys as deterrent or evidence collection is individual. Both have some value. Deterrence is actually a much more important part of why one might want cameras, as it puts up signs for experienced thieves that the next place over might be a safer target, and can discourage crimes of opportunity from less organized individuals because people behave differently when they know a camera is watching.

For evidence collection, value is really determined by your enforcement limits and desired goals. If you can't get your local police to take an active interest in the case or go vigilante yourself, the money you spent on cameras won't mean anything. If your system doesn't get usable identifying characteristics, it's useless. And the dark truth of the matter is that evidence means nothing if your goal is safety. If your goal is to be safer, what use is evidence, at any quality? It's great on insurance forms if you have insurance but won't replace your family's physical or mental well being.

Evidentiary value is rarely zero, but people should be aware of what that value is when considering their options.

Ah, okay. I see now. I've seen things that were essentially that, easy to set up DVR/NVRs for use with compatible cameras.
I still doubt its usefulness for residences though. It won't prevent you from being a victim any better than dummy cameras and a fake security system sign. Its value as an evidentiary tool is based on your local police, so everyone's experience will vary there.

They shoot you with their bow.

It always seems like, for most people, the middle three stars might as well not exist. Was it acceptable? Five stars. Do I want to complain? One star. There is no in-between.

The most important factors in the real-time/turn-based split are thinking time and immersion. One of the common goals in gaming is to create flow state, the sensation of being presented with challenges that occupy your mind with some effort but don't overwhelm it. If you want to have a more complex level of strategy in combat, it has to move toward turn-based. The player needs the chance to turn their attention toward various elements and manipulate them through the abstraction layer of the controls to achieve their desired result. However, the further you move toward turn-based, the further you move away from immersion, not that their attention is elsewhere, simply that there is no feeling of immediacy, which leads to a sense of the combat as its own puzzle/game, separate from the in-character motion. Toward the real-time end of the scale, there is little to no thinking time, which narrows the possible depth of strategy to what can be crammed into a few key/button presses, but gives the emotional impact of immersion.

Different people land at different places on the scale because of their ability to process complex situations and at what speed. It's a 2D space with speed and depth orthogonal to one another. High speed + low depth = basic FPS.
high depth + high speed = RTS.
low speed + high depth = turn-based.
low speed + low depth = auto-battler

You can't target everyone with a single game, but there are players for any one you choose.

I'd probably put it more in the frame of we find it more believable rather than relatable. Captitalist realism and all that.

I don't know that I'd put it as a directional causal relationship. It's just as believable that valuing abnormal strength and belief in a 'might makes right' judgement leads one to go to the gym and bring those ideas with you, while an opposing view would likely take you other places than a gym.

Pretty sure the big plug is in their 'pocket.'