CrossCode.

I picked it up on sale cause it looked like something I would like. It sat in my steam library for years before I played it on a whim.

What I didn’t expect was an incredible story that would have me gripped till the end. Absolutely an awesome game.

A thousand times this. There were a lot of stories that made me cry, but Alice had me sobbing. When you had to walk slowly to stay with her, I felt like I was walking with my grandmother towards the end.

Incredible game.

Snoozing is counterproductive. When you hit snooze, you are not getting meaningful rest. You are interrupting your natural sleep cycles and increasing sleep inertia, which is the groggy, disoriented feeling you have after waking up.

You are also training your brain to ignore your alarm, which makes it harder to wake up consistently over time.

Set your alarm for the exact time you need to get up and get out of bed when it goes off. Your body and mind will adjust, and you will feel more alert and rested.

Stop making it harder on yourself. Stop snoozing.

The measles outbreak earlier this year? It’s still happening and getting worse.

So glad they fired everyone at the CDC. /s

A true air fryer cooks by blasting hot air from directly above the food. The fan and heating element sit on top, and the food rests in a basket with holes that let air flow underneath. This creates a fast-moving vortex of heat that surrounds the food, cooking it evenly and making it crispy with very little oil.

A small tabletop convection oven works differently. Its fan is usually in the back or on the side, pushing hot air around the chamber instead of straight down. The air moves more gently, and the food often sits on a solid tray or rack that blocks airflow underneath. It still cooks evenly, but it produces more of a roasted texture than a fried one.

Personally, I prefer tabletop convection.

I won’t defend Schumer’s choice here. It was a bad call, and the anger from House Democrats and the base was completely justified. You’re right that the party leadership sometimes folds when they should fight. They make strategic decisions that feel disconnected from the urgency the moment demands. And yes, Democrats have corporate-aligned figures who blunt the force of reform, but that is also a reality of our current system that we have to work within.

But, sticking to your example, there is a key difference: when Democrats cave, it’s often to avoid causing harm, like a shutdown that would devastate working people. When Republicans cave, it’s to secure more tax cuts, more deregulation, and more authoritarian power. The intent and the outcome are not the same, even if the compromise leaves a bad taste in everyone’s mouth.

It also matters that Democrats have factions pushing from within. The anger from House Dems, from AOC, from the base, that’s real pressure that can move things. Republicans don’t have that kind of internal accountability. Their party punishes dissent and rewards obstruction.

And while it’s easy to say “they always have excuses,” the reality is that even when Democrats had a trifecta in 2021, their margin in the Senate was literally 50-50. One or two bad actors (like Manchin or Sinema) could tank an entire agenda, and did. That’s not an excuse. That’s a math problem, and the only way around it is bigger, more engaged progressive coalitions.

So yes, Schumer failed in that moment (and many others). Yes, we should be furious. But walking away or writing off the party entirely means handing power back to a movement that’s not just flawed. It’s actively hostile to democracy, human rights, and the planet. That’s not moral purity. That’s surrender.

I’m frustrated with the reflexive “both sides are equally bad” response that shuts down any meaningful analysis of what’s actually happening in our politics.

I’m not naive about the Democratic Party’s problems. They struggle with internal divisions, sometimes cave to corporate pressure, and they’ve made compromises that disappointed their base. But when I look at voting records, policy proposals, and legislative priorities, I see meaningful differences that have real consequences for people’s lives.

On issues I care about (healthcare access, climate action, voting rights, ext.) one party consistently proposes solutions and votes for them when they have the numbers. The other party doesn’t just oppose these policies, they fight tooth and nail to undermine them, delay them, or dismantle them entirely. That’s not a matter of opinion. That’s a matter of public record.

When Democrats fail to deliver, it’s often because they lack sufficient majorities or face procedural roadblocks. When they do have power, they’ve passed significant legislation on infrastructure, climate investment, and healthcare expansion. Meanwhile, when Republicans have unified control, their priorities have been tax cuts for the wealthy and rolling back environmental protections.

I understand the appeal of cynicism. It can feel sophisticated to dismiss all politicians as equally corrupt. But that cynicism serves the interests of those who benefit from the status quo.

If you can’t tell the difference between someone trying to reform a broken system and someone actively working to keep it broken, you’re not offering insight. You’re providing cover for obstruction.

Does this mean Democrats are perfect? Of course not. Should we hold them accountable when they fall short? Absolutely. But pretending there are no meaningful differences between the parties just because neither is perfect makes it harder to build the coalitions we need to create the change we actually want to see.