213374U

...hers?

Was that any good? I just saw it on GOG the other day. (sorry if you've already written about it, I usually skim this thread and don't remember seeing it mentioned)

Probably almost nothing. Which is kind of the problem, this smacks of low effort -- but with a $60 price tag. Don't get me wrong, I'm not overly bothered about them removing butt shots. I think it has more to do with them taking their "artistic vision" a tad too seriously than kowtowing to essjaydubyoos or whatever today's crusade is about. I mean, it always was a juvenile power fantasy, not ****ing Crime and Punishment. I'm simply disappointed that that's the scope they have settled for because under other circumstances I'm the guy you'd sell this product to. Guess not. And yes, the multiplayer servers are still up and people play it to this day. People are weird and like things.

The fact that BioWare consider that cutting back on the ass effect is worth their time but updating the multiplayer for the remaster isn't is disappointing.

Yes, it's been more than a year since I last played, I think. Though I read some dev diary not long ago where they explained that they had rebalanced the whole game aiming to reduce pop totals by ~50% because it was the #1 factor causing lag. That left me with the impression that they simply didn't know how to fix the game properly and had opted simply to downsize the ill-conceived 2.2 pop system, which was also micromanagement hell and broke sector AI (which they still haven't fixed from what I've seen). It's entirely possible that the game is much better now and I'm simply biased, but even by your own admission, the game can still lag bad near the end. I'll probably get back to it at some point, but I doubt it'll be soon.

Brilliant. So deleting the galaxy is how they are going about fixing performance problems? In the next DLC: endgame event uninstalls Stellaris with some blurb about the metaphysical end of existence itself or something.

Self-determination is a serious minefield. Of course, politicians and useful idiots are always going to argue that it applies where it hurts their opponents while simultaneously suggesting that it doesn't where it would hurt them. Consistency is for chumps. Russians strongly -by force of arms strong- supported it in Crimea, but any discussion of it in the Caucasus is a non-starter. It is also Schrödinger's right in the case of Taiwan, with the US functionally treating Taiwan as an independent country but stopping short of recognizing it as such because that would immediately trigger Chinese military action. The US also famously has self‑determination as the essence of its very existence but denies it for many others, with the Sahrawi people being the latest example. The principle is enshrined in the UN Charter... for all the good that does. It shouldn't be surprising that the usual suspects here and elsewhere apply it selectively -- almost everyone does.

@Guard Dog While I tend to agree... actually nuclear is not very well regarded in Europe either. There's like 2 new nuclear power plants being built in all of the EU, so a comparable number to the US, if I'm not mistaken. With Germany's pledge to phase out nuclear power by yesterday, the net balance is probably negative.

Or they can just cut back production, lay off a few thousand workers, close down production facilities -- and keep prices and profit margins the same (or better!). It's called a cartel for a reason. I think it's strange that you're thinking you won't be affected by the greed of oilmen in the same page that you declared that the end user always ends up getting the fuzzy end of the lollipop. I generally agree with you on the hamburgers thing, btw. The viability of their business model is predicated on paying peanuts to workers. That doesn't mean regs are bad. I for one am not looking forward to a 1800s-era job landscape where I have to pull 16-hour work days because labor has been determined by the "free market" to be worth nothing so I need 3 jobs to make ends meet. Much as you hate to hear it, it's workers rights preventing semi-slavery business models from being a thing anymore -in the West- not the invisible hand or markets magically deciding that they aren't competitive. If enforcing that means a handful of fast food chains have to go the way of the dodo... tough. The alternative is much worse. And speaking of electric cars, Ol' Musky is now the richest man in the world. Surely his insane climb in net worth since the election has nothing to do with a new, green-friendly administration and Congress boosting the value of his business. Gotta love self-made men and "free" markets.

They are changing some things beyond resolution. Still, not sure it's worth it considering they are still using Unreal 3 and I'm really not interested in 4K.

Huh? Why is a 20-year old game news? edit: never mind, it's a new game that just happens to look exactly like one that was released in 2000

Nah, we were discussing transparency, which is what I replied to. Then you made it about elections being "free and fair", which again, the OSCE report does not dispute, because they are not in the business of ultra‑summarizing to push an agenda. What they did is raise reasonable concerns about unequal media exposure and obstacles faced by prospective candidates, chief among them "fundamental freedoms" being restricted. This bit refers specifically to the right of assembly, which has been violated repeatedly by governments in Europe and the US (remember that pipeline?) for one reason or another. No doubt OSCE would have preferred if Navalny had been allowed to be a candidate, but it's probably a good thing that he wasn't because he would have faceplanted pretty hard, what with his popularity being in the vicinity of 2%. A failed candidate is nowhere near as attractive as a martyr. Overall, the report falls short of being an indictment, because the fact is that Putin simply does not need to cheat in order to win. And Russians consistently voting "wrong" causes an absolutely fantastic amount of butthurt in the West. But I digress. Then you went and brought up how, in contrast to Russia, the US elections are "free and fair" despite the Big Five's disproportionate coverage of big party candidates, and super PAC and "dark money" groups' (transparency schmarency) contributions completely destroying any illusion that politics in the US has become anything other than money exchanging hands. Apparently, the definition of free and fair is choosing between two bought and paid for candidates of the same establishment that... well, we've been down that road before. Indeed, we've been at this before, terms will continue to be redefined to mean whatever you need them to mean depending on the circumstances and I'm not really in the mood for your particular brand of intellectual dishonesty. Goodbye.

Yes, rich tech moguls and Wall Street deciding who gets attention and exposure rather than the government is so much more equitable and fair. And a thoroughly corrupted, plutocratic bipartisan system where a third party candidate has literally never won in 200 years (which not even Teddy Roosevelt could overcome, and despite independent registered voters outnumbering Republicans) is very much the epitome of the concept of "letting the people decide". I mean, you could have gone with any other country in contrast to Putin's Russia, but you had to choose the US.

As recently as 2018, OSCE found no irregularities in Russian elections -- only complaining that state media favored Putin excessively (which is of course of concern) and opining that the election framework wasn't conducive to "genuine" opposition. Much as Western media and urban elites would like to paint Navalny as a champion of the people loved by all, and Putin as a hated and corrupt tyrant, it seems that Russians largely ain't buying that. In reality, it's likely that Russians are more or less content to have Putin because the alternatives are laughable dilettantes, Western stooges, or commie fossils. Riling up Western hypocrites is just a bonus.

Heh. And here I thought it was mostly a result of fractional reserve banking and overlending (both arguably the result of underregulation, rather) and the financial derivatives "economy" being ~10x the world's combined GDP. But no, it's actually the Federal Reserve giving money to the poor to spend on avocado toast, or something. Guess that's the "real" money you mentioned you were turning your ideas into?

So, about that Ranger drama, because it's much more entertaining to me than dollar bill discussions. Not that the guy isn't a piece of trash, what with calling for the 101st to come down on BLM protesters, but man. Media shooting themselves in the foot? Don't mind if I do.

I believe this is correct also. Again using my BIL as an example, at one point he was attached to a Green Beret unit, but I don't think he was ever referred to as a Green Beret. Makes sense. From what (little) I know, the converse is true -- graduating from the SF course earns you a Green Beret, whether or not you serve in a SF Group. Would you be 'Special Forces', though? Not sure I'd go to Salon.com for an authoritative answer...

What the hell. So being in the 82nd doesn't make you 'airborne' (I guess you need to pass some course or cert for that?). And then passing Ranger School doesn't make you a 'Ranger' but being in the 75th does even if you never went to Ranger School. Makes zero sense, thanks. edit: I missed some previous reply. My confusion stems from the fact that apparently, going to Ranger School is not a requirement for serving in the 75th, but passing the selection course is. So graduating Ranger School has actually nothing to do with being a 'Ranger', which seems... odd.

Just curious. Graduating from Ranger School doesn't make you a 'Ranger'? Only serving in the Ranger unit does? What if one serves in the unit as enlisted but never completes Ranger School? The Army website does not make it unequivocally clear.

A similar thing happened over here a few years ago -- the conservative government back then, pressured by influential media conglomerates, passed a law that mandated that media extract a payment from Google (and similar services, but it was mainly aimed at Google) whenever their content was indexed in their News service. The literal next day, Google News shut down here (and nothing of value was lost). Marginal payments have been made by other services according to the law, since the government bureau charged with enforcement was endowed with a chair and a pen, in typical fashion. In Australia's case, it seems Google is attempting to leverage its disproportionate market share to pressure the government into backing down from any attempts to hurt its bottom line. And I'll eat my hat if they lose. Unlike here, though, it seems they may be trying to strike one-on-one deals with big players to outmaneuver the gov't, in a sort of divide and conquer strategy. I think we better get used to it. The whole 'rona thing has been fantastic for big tech, and governments are going to keep losing the ability to rein them in. It's always amusing when politicians are caught between two special interests so openly, though.

I'd imagine one reason for vouchers instead of pre-packaged meals is logistics. Much easier to mail a bunch of coupons than a package containing food. Setting up a nation-wide delivery chain for foodstuffs isn't exactly trivial -- so the existing ones are used instead. The reason why deployed troops get MREs is because they can't just go to a convenience to trade in a voucher (I'm sure they'd prefer that if it was a possibility). Also giving people MRE-like packages doesn't stop them from selling them or trading them for hooch or tweak. Cause/symptom and all that.

Doesn't explain why communities with little to no social protection networks and endemic hunger problems often have high birth rates. People aren't that dumb -- they know that if they barely have food to cover their own needs, having children is going to make matters worse. It still happens, regardless. Yes, it's a Complex Problem(tm), and so, suggesting that cutting aid is somehow going to teach financial and family planning to poverty-stricken communities is, at best, a gross oversimplification. It's not like food stamps are an incentive for women to push out more babies. In short, it's a nice theory, but that's all it is. You may have a case regarding something like UBI, but even with that, evidence is limited. And while we're at it, I'd like to see evidence that giving food to wild animals removes their ability to find their own food. Feral dogs seem to do fine, and they were domesticated at some point.

Fun as this has been, I figure the thread has been derailed enough, and I'm willing to take my share of the blame for this. I'm asking members to continue any further bickering by PM.

Back to the memes, at least. Stick to what you know. Good man.

But the problem is the comparison is inconsistent. You are describing not a worst-case, but an impossible scenario with even 50% infection rates (the 1918 flu infected an estimated 30% of the world's pop, and your own reference to Sweden's hands-off approach makes it clear that the infection dynamics simply don't work that way because they are looking at a ~5-10% infection rate) and _attendant_ circumstances derived from bungling responses to the disease. A consistent comparison would be either best-case scenarios for both situations (i.e. averted war and effective measures limiting the spread with minimal disruption) or worst-case scenario comparisons for both. Once again -- Europe didn't see another war, but they very much happened elsewhere in the world, and it goes without saying that they caused mortality rates way higher than even the worst projections for 'rona even without going nuclear. And yes, the fact is that most people (as in ~99%) will not die of 'rona, and those who do die tend to be higher and to the left in the population pyramid. Whether you feel this underestimates or overestimates the risk is irrelevant, because those are figures -- anything else you believe I'm saying is just you projecting onto what I've been posting. As an aside, it's really weird that you're crying about personal attacks (which I didn't make by the way, I rather assume you are ignorant), after you insinuated that anyone who had the nerve to disagree with you or Merkel is a "looney conspiracy ideologist". Shoe on the other foot et al.