They both approximate perfect representation close enough. If the difference between one government or the other comes down to variations that are basically explained by the weather being good or bad on voting day, you can’t really claim that the government isn’t representative.
Just because it didn’t represent YOUR opinion, it doesn’t make it less representative. A truly representative government will make decisions that align with 10% of the population 10% of the time. So if 10% of the population want to bomb Canada a perfectly representative government will make it happen every 40 years or so.
There is no issue with the source other than it not the new york times or the washington post or the bbc
So pointing out that the source you posted is biased and potentially unreliable is fine. You citing another source (even one cited in the article itself) is completely par for the course. Hell, now I really would like to know, why you chose to post a secondary source when you had the primary source avaiable to you?
Isn’t that how discourse is supposed to work though? If there are issues with the credibility of a source, it’s fine to point those out. And then you respond with a different source to which the criticism does not apply.
Where is the issue?
It was a “Game Disc” and a “Video Disc”. You could choose to copy the Videos during install or you would have to physically swap discs when you got to a rendered cutscene (which was only between acts, but still).
I love “yeet cap rn”.
The toolset they use to run their containerlike system wrapping the games is called “pressure vessel”.