Jump to content

Achilles

Members
  • Posts

    3385
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

Everything posted by Achilles

  1. I don't know if you're the only one, but I'm not sure I agree. Since none of us have been able to play part 3, we can only speculate as to where the story was going, but I suspect that there were still more revelations about the Watcher to come.
  2. Do they? I'm pretty sure Obsidian is on record as saying they did first person for TOW because it's easier.
  3. I watched it a couple of times yesterday and wanted to sleep on it before commenting. As others have pointed out, it seems pretty obvious that this is going to take a page from the Outer Worlds. That's fine with me; I liked that game. I think that enough has been teased about the Living Lands that I'm excited about it as a setting. Hub-and-spoke games usually have some sort of ship that acts as a base for the player and companions. I wonder if that means more sailing. Day/night cycle is shown in the trailer. Wondering if that will have some impact on game play. Narrative of "representative with growing power" reminds me a bit of Tyranny, which I also enjoyed tremendously. Would love if this is a "spiritual successor" (especially if we get to revisit that magic system). As someone who's mostly been playing Valheim the last few years, the graphics look fine. Wake me again when the story trailer drops
  4. My recollection of the evolving thought process sounds something like, "we're not going to make part 3 until we understand why part 2 didn't sell" -> "we're not going to make part 3 until we feel like working on another Pillars game". I suspect that the latter will happen eventually, but only after the pain of the former subsides a bit.
  5. He's outside the abattoir stirring a pot which isn't there
  6. So...it was a long time ago and I admit that I didn't necessarily do a deep dive at the time, but didn't the aid come in the form of anti-viral drugs that were produced by a company with ties to Donald Rumsfeld? Please correct me if I'm mistaken/remembering that incorrectly. P.S. Which isn't to say that would shouldn't care, only that I remember Bush's "help" being not that altruistic.
  7. I really wanted to like this one, but could never get over the shoddy text-based chase scene, nor the part where holding up your cell phone allows you to locate the person you're calling. It's almost like Scorsese is confused by mobile phones and assumes the audience is also.
  8. I think the people who have reservations about UBI are well served to re-read your first two sentences as many times as they need to for the argument to sink in. For better or worse, folks. As for practicality of implementation, I'm sure there are better and worse options. "Figuring it out later" falls into the latter category.
  9. I appreciate the clarification. I believe I understand the point you are trying to make and agree that statistically, the majority of people do take welfare benefits usually only do so for a limited period of time. However... ...this isn't to say that there isn't a legitimate welfare trap. Just as there are people who do abuse the system there are also people who find themselves in situations where getting off of welfare becomes almost impossible (you either have to win the job lottery, be willing to work two or three jobs, or figure out how to make just enough NOT to lose your benefits while waiting for one of the other two opportunities to present itself). Is Friedman painting everyone with this brush when he shouldn't be? Yes. Does that means these people don't exist? No. Would UBI help them? I'm going with "yes" but could be persuaded otherwise. That's a question of framing and whether or not we should have means testing. Not whether or not UBI would benefit some people. Admitting that my thinking could be wrong on this, I don't care that Bill Gates gets UBI when "he doesn't deserve it" if it means that a school teacher can quit her second job to focus on the one she loves. Or my son can quit his part time gig to focus on going to school full time. Et cetera. Yes, I'm paying for his college because I can afford it. I'll also be paying off the parent plus loans until I die. I'll take the "free money" too please. "Nowhere close" is fair
  10. I think there's a difference between "is not representative of all circumstances" and "completely wrong". I would agree with you that Friedman's take is sloppy and leaves out a lot of people's stories. I don't think that makes the point completely wrong. As someone who grew up poor white trash, and lived around other families who were also struggling with the welfare trap, I can attest that it's very much real. Happy to look at whatever metrics you'd like to share regarding percentages. For the record, I agree that our track record with homelessness and mental health treatment is deplorable.
  11. My dad was a cop. Every time he saw me so much as look admiringly at a motorcycle he would start in with the stories about cleaning up accident scenes. "You know why motorcycle insurance is so cheap, son? They never have to pay out on it"
  12. You appear to have missed the “if” How do you know there is a soul/spirit? Is it possible that whatever you’re calling “soul” is something else with a better explanation than what’s been handed down to us by pre-scientific tradition?
  13. At the risk of being pedantic, if there is no soul that survives the body, then none of us will find out ever.
  14. This book has a section on trans issues that might be food for thought.
  15. This week I finished a re-read of this: Which spurred a re-read of this:
  16. Interesting read, but I have a feeling I'm not the target audience
  17. Did a re-read of this guy over the weekend. Looking forward to the movie
  18. The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure If you're interested in what academia is telling us, I recommend the above
  19. Indeed it will be...as will "genuine egregious" I think teaching young people how to view the actions of our country through a mature moral lens is a good thing. I think teaching people that systemic racism exists and needs to be dismantled is a good thing. I think teaching young people that "words = violence" is a bad thing. I think that teaching young people that it's ok to destroy the lives of people you disagree with is a bad thing. There are many more examples to cover, both beyond the reference points I've created here as well as in between them. Rational and reasonable people should be able to operationally define "genuine value"...but first we need to value reason and critical thinking and then make them cornerstones of actual education. Final point here: I have a lot of respect for educators, but they are people too, just like the rest of us. They have their own biases and beliefs. Many of them are heroes. Many of them shouldn't be let anywhere near the levers of power I think you're proposing. Again, my 2 cents Agree with everything you're saying here I think we will have a "perfect society" when everyone has an equal opportunity to do the thing they WANT to do rather than when all the flavors are doing all the things in equal number. The latter is a) too simplistic a definition for "equality" and b) sadly, the one it seems most everyone is interested in As for the last part: “What white people have to do is try and find out in their own hearts why it is necessary to have a 'n-----' in the first place, because I'm not a 'n-----'. I'm a man. But if you think I'm a 'n-----', it means you need it.” -James Baldwin I'm probably missing something here. It sounds like you're arguing both for and against wokeness here. Possibly because "wokeness" means different things to different audiences?
×
×
  • Create New...