In the first one, you could drop in and out of each other's games and you would share progress on relevant missions. In number 2 you would join one players game, only they would get credit for any progress and it tethered you together. So although technically co-op, it was a significant downgrade from the first game and didn't lend itself to the open world nature of the game, more like being player 2.

I have a co-op buddy too and heaps of good suggestions from others here. Two that I've been enjoying as 2 person co-op:

Wartales: started this after completing BG3 and it was a real interesting change in thinking. This is fantasy party adventure, but you run a team of mercenaries, so it's more about the team build and strategy, rather than the specific character focus that you have in BG3.

The Wild Eight: an isometric survival, crafting, set in a plane crash in the snow. Some story, discovery elements included.

But not 2, because the sequel doesn't have true co-op

The dynamic story telling in Wyldermyth is fantastic, love interesting character arcs that can develop.

Obviously you just have an ugly family

I hear Boeing ordered 6 of these rockets all ready

Maybe $11.99, they won't actually confirm that till checkout

Wait, I thought posting pictures of your thighs was required for running Linux?

So I would be best installing it at my nose height?

Anything that doesn't just funnel money back to millionaires. I've never understood people's aversion to tax, especially when they should be focusing on the rigged two party system that is at the core of the wastage.

If I have to choose one, universal basic income, it solves a lot of problems. It can help people in need, but if you want to be selfish about it, at least it lowers the odds that someone will rob your house.

As for people worried about making sure it goes to the right people, I would rather pay a few scammers than risk having someone in genuine need suffer

Our IT often use a Boolean as a shortcut for figuring out things in code. For example, if there's a charge we don't apply to some customers, instead of setting it to zero, they'll have a Boolean on the customer to decide whether they skip that part of the calculation. On top of this, they then name it in a way that limits how many records they have to update, this leads to many settings phrased in the negative, such as "Don't apply extra leg charges". As an extra layer on this, more recently they were made aware of the confusion this causes for staff and their solution was to change how end users are the question, which causes the "yes/no" in the interface to read the opposite of the "true/false" in the database

Good on them for cutting down on the pedophilia, it's always hard to kick a habit