Proton seems on the wrong side of the usability - privacy spectrum. Every last feature I’d want from an online provider is impossible or massively neutered by the overly strict security.

I wish there was a similar service in a trustworthy country with a more sane level of safety, like opt-in encryption for example.

I want a shooter-esque game crossed with MOBA stuff. Basically, I just want Monday Night Combat, Battleborn or Gigantic to come back.

ANY effective, long-term collective change REQUIRES that the large majority of people CHANGE THEIR CONSUMPTION HABBITS. While not great, the private plane stuff is exactly as pointless as the paper straws. Both are ways for everyone to point the finger at everyone else, and not have to change.

If the government implemented the “correct” laws tomorrow, but the populace doesn’t want to change their habits, they will vote in people that give them back their old, bad things.

If a company implemented to “correct” processes, but the consumers don’t want to pay the necessary price, they go bankrupt, and the company with the “incorrect, but cheap” processes wins.

ALL COLLECTIVE ACTION IS A COLLECTION OF INDIVIDUAL CHANGE. There is no alternative!

Nier Automata. I really hated the replaying it part. The combat gets incredibly boring after the first two playthroughs. I also found the supposedly “deep” story to be extremely lacking, very on the nose and, like way too much japanese entertainment, bipolar when it comes to emotions.

Honestly, Immortals: Fenyx Rising was superior to Breath of the Wild in every way (for me at least). The world wasn’t “stretched” in size needlessly, “shrines” integrated directly into the overworld, instead of being seperate, the collectibles were sometimes fun (compared to Koroks, which were always bad), there were far more interesting characters and side quests, the world was more alive, the combat was better (if we ignore BotWs weird physics stuff, which has fuckall to do with an action RPG), exploration had an actual point, because you might actually find something nice that doesn’t break five swings in, the story was superior, and the humor was great (to me).

TL;DR: Ubisoft cancels a sequel to their best game in some time, no suprise here.

Having had lobster exactly once, I really don’t understand. The meat tastes like nothing, exactly like 99% of all meat. The only exception is a good beef cut, and that still has to be prepared correctly. Everything else is just about the butter, salt, spices.

The manual part I can kind of understand, honestly. There’s something rewarding about working for your food. Though I did feel like I’m using more energy to get the food than I end up consuming. It’s like a lick-mat for dogs.

It is not about taking them to public places and you damn well know that! It’s putting them into a metal tube with a lot of stressors and ruining the flight of many many other people just because you couldn’t be bothered to take a break from flying for the first 2-3 years of their life.

But that’s true of literally every single community. Posting copyrighted images in a pics community, copyrighted music in a little video/gif, a nazi denying the holocaust (illegal in Germany) in one little comment a hundred comments in…

Who do you think is more likely to overstep? A community very well aware of the risks and the scrutiny they are under, full of people that are themselves aware of the risks, or some rando on some random community?

Obviously, they are allowed to ban or not ban whatever they want, but I just think it’s a very short sighted, quickfire decision.

Because from everything I’ve seen, those communities did not do ANYTHING illegal. They talked about software that can be used that way, but if we go by that measure, discussing any Fediverse software is illegal, because you could use that to host illegal content.

The worst thing is that it’s often just that one specific mission that has shitty checkpoints. The rest is generally fine, but then you hit that wall and you want to do PHYSICAL VIOLENCE. At least that’s been my experience.

I often find mechanics that only exist to waste time incredibly annoying. In the case of loot, a limited inventory is kind of that. You could absolutely just portal/teleport to town, sell your stuff, and then get back to playing. There’s no challenge involved, EXCEPT that it wastes your real-world time.

I liked the pets in Torchlight for this reason. You could send them off to sell loot, while you kept playing the part of the game that’s actually fun.

One exception is something like Resident Evil, where the choice is relevant to the gameplay directly. But even then, I would’ve preferred limits on individual elements (Only X weapons, only X healing items, etc.) and having extras automatically stored.

But some people play them with just a Dance pad. Doesn’t that, by your logic, mean they are too easy? Shouldn’t they be even harder? Maybe they’d be even more famous. The point is that difficulty is relative, therefore there OBJECTIVELY isn’t a correct difficulty. You’re just lucky enough to fit into their “difficulty demographic”.

But it’s moot anyway. Games with easy modes will still get played with high difficulty by people that actually enjoy it. Your own enjoyment of a game should not depend on other peoples difficulty levels.

This is one big reason why I liked Fenyx way better than Breath of the Wild. The Fenyx world is far smaller, but also more dense with actually interesting things to do. You have a horse in both, but the distances in BotW are still just pointlessly big, esp. when 90% of the things you can find are just the same two things: shrines and koroks.

I personally find the most important part of those choices isn’t the actual effect, but whether the game managed to immerse me enough so that I care.

For example, in Life is Strange, there’s a string of choices you can make that will get someone killed (or save them). The game invests enough time in the character before hand so when you come to the crossroads, the decisions FEEL very important. Do those choices have any big effects on the game? Not really. The character isn’t part of the main story line anymore after that, you only get some people referencing the difference. But if FELT important.

Think about the polar opposite: Choices that change the entire game, but you aren’t invested in. Would those be interesting choices, or would that just be 2 games in the form of one, and the choice is just a kind of “game select screen”.

Hey! The first half was actually really good. The second half didn’t happen.

Seriously, I remember replaying Fahrenheit like 2 or 3 times and always stopping at the halfway mark. That very first level in the diner promised soooo much, and the game never delivered.

While I don’t mind openworld games, they definitely feel off, esp. with regards to the main quest. Can’t save the world, gotta get this granny laid.

One of the only games with a open world that actually REQUIRED it for the game to make sense is Paradise Killers. It’s a detective open world game on an island. The open world makes a lot of sense, because a detective has to find their clues. It’s not a detective game if there’s a counter of “clues found” or there’s a linear progression. The game never tells you that you’re done finding clues. Like a real detective in a real open world, you have to decide whether you’ve seen enough.

Does she even need Linux? 99% of things that run on Linux will also run on MacOS (or have a MacOS version). If you need a VM, Virtualbox is good enough. I’d recommend Ubuntu, simply because that’s what most people use, ergo you’ll find tutorials/information for every little aspect of it.

Not everything that elicits emotion is an appeal to emotion. If I argue with a conservative and say that “anti-trans legislation leads to more trans suicides of the children you pretend to protect”, is that an appeal to emotion just because the conversative might get emotional?

An appeal to emotion is backed solely by the other persons emotion, nothing else. The very accurate description of what meat is backed by logic and the morality of most people, if we’re being honest.

Now, regarding effectiveness, I don’t know what’s better. All I know is that the people that aren’t activist always seem to know exactly how to do activism correctly. This applies to anti-racism, or feminism too. “I agree with your message, but your actions are too extreme/disruptive/emotional/etc.” Personally, I believe that the correct activism is ALL the activism: The loud, and the practical, and the friendly.

Veganism is not a diet, so just giving recipes without a philosophical backing will likely not create a lifelong lifestyle shift.

Regarding tofu I’d say think of it like plain chicken. It has zero real taste of it’s own, so just put it into stuff that’s tasty. Since it doesn’t have to be cooked for a specific time like chicken or lentils, I often just crumple a bit into whatever I’m making if it’s lacking “mass”. I would honestly recommend an actual, real life, paper cookbook over following youtube videos. They’re often more detailed, and better for beginners esp.

So, unless they can reduce the harm they cause to 0%, any and all attempts to reduce it are futile and pointless? This is the nirvana fallacy, and I hope you understand how horrible that would be if we lived by that rule. For example, I can’t stop all racism, all human exploitation, all sexism because I live in a capitalistic hellscape built on the suffering of others. Therefore, I don’t actually need to try, correct?

Think about the argument you’re making here: “Wild animals do X, therefore humans should be allowed to do X”. I hope you understand how horrible this argument is. Here’s a fun little list of things animals do:

• Eat their young
• Grape
• Murder each other for status or access to women
• shit on the floor in public