dillekant

Liberals will break the law, or create new laws, to stop the left, but think the law is enough to stop the right. The reason is that the Liberal cause is a "nice to have", but the protection of neoliberalism is a "must have".

I learnt that from Shaun's video about JK Rowling, which is eye opening. Basically, nothing bad in her universe ever changes. Slavery remains, because the slaves like it, for instance. Maintaining that status quo is a "must have" for her. Having the heroes fight for what's right is a "nice to have", despite being the main story.

I'm extremely worried about India. While, luckily, Climate is not a politicised issue, they are still spending their energy on religious bullshit instead of climate adaptations. They really need to be spending basically all the wealth they have on adaptations across regions or they are in for a massive shock.

"Opinion". Yeah, to be honest I'm kind of over reading opinions.

Wonder why conservatives are all neoliberal tho? Wonder why history in their books goes back to a certain time and no further?

Conservationist?

Let's start with the word "blame": Veilguard isn't bad on the whole. It's possibly good, even. I think a lot of the problem with how it's been received is that it's not "Bioware good", which can be a disappontment even for a good game, especially after coming down from Baldur's fucking Gate 3, a once in a generation game.

So maybe if we said "credit" instead, and I think we can say yeah she sort of can take credit for the game. They offered her game director and she took it, and she put her name to it. I know it's a shit position to be in, but if you look at Whedon and the Justice League, he passed the "credit" onto Snyder. Busche could have done the same if she chose, but she chose to put her name to it.

Getting a game which is going off the rails back onto the rails is really tough. Kudos to her.

I have a full fat rack, but I'd like to adapt the 10" onto it, is there some sort of adapter thingie to maybe go two-wide?

This mostly doesn't happen in Australia. Zebra crossing means stop. A lot of pedestrians won't even check, they just walk onto the road on a crossing.

I feel like maybe we did these in the petrostates to get them out of the way. The next one is in Brazil with (hopefully) Lula. Let's see how it goes.

I think there's definitely an element of "the people in charge know what to do", or that it's a transient problem, not one which locks us into effort for centuries.

The forces at play are far greater than you realize in scope and scale

I know it's a turn of phrase but you don't know me. I realise the scope and scale of how the world works, thanks.

Your pitching

The future you want

You're assuming a lot given what I've said. It's not an "in effect" thing either. You talk about actual systems in a way which invokes Gandalf magic when they work like Penn and Teller magic. You assume the article and any defense of it is naive, but you're missing the simple reality that sometimes you can simply remove huge amounts of complexity and get a better result.

The internet, for example, is not magic. There were several competing communication protocols, from circuit switched systems to fax to pagers. The internet is able to do all of those jobs, and it is a simpler system than the ones which existed in the past. It moved some complexity around, and therefore removed a bunch of complexity which was unnecessary.

This increase in simplicity is also called the second industrial revolution.

Simplification is always regressive and backwards.

Perhaps you prefer the term decomplecting? Complexity is an overloaded term, but you literally follow up "simplification as a regressive thing" with a bunch of simplification which is effective. Since we are sharing reading lists, perhaps a bit of Dr Fatima and Think that Through on Youtube might help you. It's clear you do not understand the article nor my points.

The world without complexity was only able to feed around 2 billion humans

Bold claim. Why do you think complexity itself can improve efficiency? I can easily tank efficiency by adding complexity. Complexity also necessarily destroys resilience. Every time we've tried adding complexity, all of those societies disappear, from ancient Egypt to Rome to the Incans.