Lemmilicious

Are you sure it wasn’t “brzeczyszczykiewicz” (difference in last two letters)? Otherwise it seems like a little typo, which, to be fair, would be a good idea to keep it safe from Polish people haha

Ah haha sorry, but yes it’s indeed deleted for me now too!

I think you might be confusing this game with Outer Worlds, very similar title but very different game! I would recommend Outer Wilds to almost anyone who like exploration, discovery, mystery (with SPACE on top) but haha maybe that’s not what you meant to ask

I’ll express my last bit of disagreement with your reasoning and then I’ll probably leave this argumentation, but I will read if you choose to respond. This is not what cost means, you are basically saying that your gut tells you it should be cheaper without any supportive arguments. If e.g. the train requires more energy to run faster, that alone could make it more costly, even if it has a higher capacity. Since neither one of us seems to have idea of the actual costs of running trains, I don’t think we’ll get anywhere with this!

Is it really? Because that claim goes against my intuition so if it’s true I would be happy to get more details! But what you say doesn’t quite make sense to me, sorry if I seem pedantic: transporting people faster is not the same as transporting more people. You transport more people per unit time, but not necessarily in total. I also don’t see how faster trains need less staff. When you say it’s cheaper, do you also take into account investment cost, or do you neglect those and just mean operating costs?

I don’t disagree with you, I didn’t mean to say that there’s no way of HSR being good, just that maybe we’re not doing it quite right! Maybe just fixing pricing would be possible, I don’t know what. I also don’t know if they actually got rid of the old tracks or just of the train route. I just want both HSR and the old trains back haha!

That’s really a great article, thanks for the link!

Still, there’s plenty of criticism in the article I linked that is not touched on, I hardly think it becomes irrelevant by reading Jon Worth’s writing! Even with his proposals I’m really not sure if we would get back the cheap and still relatively fast connections that have been removed. To me there’s not a clear benefit to getting rid of the old “low-speed” rail even if we fix SNCF.

So the article is very long so let me TL;DR a little. It mentions that when high speed rail is build, existing low-speed rails are often removed. Those removes routes are a little slower but often MUCH cheaper. I would say, like the author, that more expensive trains that are a little faster doesn’t rhyme well with “let people go fast”. He also has examples of night trains being removed in favour of a high speed rail, which hardly is a time-save if you count sleeping at night! Great examples in the article.

High speed rail doesn’t have to hurt low-speed rail, it just has the way we’ve been doing it in Europe.

Haha I’m scared of sounding like I don’t like high speed rail, which I do! I love trains in general, I’m interrailing right now! Buuut I felt this was a relevant place to link this fascinating article (slightly click-baity headline) about how high speed rail in Europe is actually not constructed in a very good way, because it ends up eliminating many of the positive sides with the European railway network: https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2013/12/high-speed-trains-are-killing-the-european-railway-network/

Edit: fixed typo

Hey, so I side with Ukraine in the current conflict, but in general I’m somewhat of a NATO sceptic and really not a fan of US foreign policy. I was curious about the information you provided, but honestly, in contrast to what you claim, it seems to me that you have not explained most of your points. Yeah there’s been a clear political divide in Ukraine, but it requires an enormous leap of logic to see that as justification of the Russian invasion. Yeah NATO sucks in many ways, and it and Ukraine too have done some shitty things, but again, there seems to be absolutely no sensible argument for any of that to have justified the invasion.

I haven’t watched the French documentary yet, in case any of your arguments relied on it. A quick online search on the journalist does mention several untrue pieces of Russian propaganda that seem to be mentioned in the documentary, though. Any chance you could explain more, or is this lack of explanation all there is for someone curious to understand why the war is happening?

To be fair, “game of the year” feels like it’s meant to measure popularity, while “most innovative” sounds like it shouls measure how innovative a game is, which is perhaps why the two awards get such different reactions.

Definitely Jusant. It was just such a perfect game for me when I played it, chill but engaging in exactly the way I needed it, and something about the story just went straight into my heart unlike any other!

This article is about the author’s personal relationship to E3 and how it reminds him about unhealthy work habits he has, which he also thinks are commonly occuring in games journalism.

I think it’s very fair not to like the article, I wasn’t overly interested in it myself, but honestly I can’t help but disagreeing with the negativity directed towards the author in many of these comments. Go ahead and dislike the point of the article, but making a uncharitable reading about the author just seems silly to me.

Personally I hated the game the first couple of hours before I discovered the autopilot, because I was dying too often too achieve anything interesting. Then I discovered it, and then actually learned to fly, and since then I just loved the game. Maybe consider if you might be in a similar situation, or if maybe it’s just not your thing!

Yeah, I see what you mean. And no worries, I understand your frustration, it’s all good!

I understand the comic wouldn’t make sense, but it does seem I misunderstood your comment, so I’m sorry about that! When you write “if God were real” I just assume that you also meant indulgences would work in that case. But yeah with more context I see you didn’t mean to imply that

You seem to imply that carbon offsets actually work, and while I’ve heard some do, I also had the impression that most don’t

Yeah I (and probably everyone else) agree that indefinite growth is not sustainable, but no-one argues for such growth and as far as I know there are no reasons to suspect the world population will grow indefinitely.

I don’t know of the top of my head how sustainable a lower-middle class Westerner is, but my guess is not overly sustainable, as it feels that modern society is made so you naturally emit quite a lot. My guess is that we could sustain 10 billion or a bit more, I haven’t really heard any convincing arguments we couldn’t. I agree there must be an upper limit, but I think it much be much further than you think.

Pretty sure that he pointed out that a small fraction of the population is responsible for an absolutely disproportionate amount of emissions. Is really decreasing the population necessary, or would it be more effective to decrease the emissions of the current population, since we see that a lot of emissions come from so few people?

Also, industrial revolution changed more than just population, I’m sure you know better than simply implying that such a correlation as you describe implies a causation.

You’re not blaming the poor, but you’re still pointing to population growth as the cause, which raginghummus convincingly argued against.