Count Regal Inkwell to 196@lemmy.blahaj.zone • 1 year agodeath of the ruleternetpawb.socialimagemessage-square101fedilinkarrow-up11.12Karrow-down10
arrow-up11.12Karrow-down1imagedeath of the ruleternetpawb.socialCount Regal Inkwell to 196@lemmy.blahaj.zone • 1 year agomessage-square101fedilink
minus-squareCount Regal InkwellOPlinkfedilink85•1 year ago“You shouldn’t do [y] either, you idiot, you absolute fucking buffoon. You should instead do [z, which costs a fortune and/or requires you to restructure your entire life]”
minus-square@BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilink56•1 year agoThread closed [x] already answered please go to link: completly unrelated topic actually about [a]
minus-square@rtxn@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglish32•1 year agoAnd the link points to a solution from 2006 using a method that’s been outdated and unsupported for a decade.
minus-square@pewgar_seemsimandroid@lemmy.blahaj.zonelinkfedilink1•1 year agosomebody replies to it “Here’s everything going wrong with [x]”
minus-square@TheFriendlyDickhead@lemm.eelinkfedilink5•1 year agoBut it will be slighly more efficient
“You shouldn’t do [y] either, you idiot, you absolute fucking buffoon. You should instead do [z, which costs a fortune and/or requires you to restructure your entire life]”
Thread closed [x] already answered please go to link: completly unrelated topic actually about [a]
And the link points to a solution from 2006 using a method that’s been outdated and unsupported for a decade.
somebody replies to it “Here’s everything going wrong with [x]”
But it will be slighly more efficient