I did enjoy World though it involved a lot of interacting with bad UI and walking to a monster. Can’t really complain about grind, as you don’t have to fight the same monster too much. The story cutscenes and missions were painfully bad.

What I did like was fighting one big enemy rather that hordes of small ones, having to be close and it being risky, exotic weapon movesets. It is great that you can and do use the environment to your advantage all the time.

I would like to see a game that does the fighting big enemies in terrain but with more physics based attacks. The hitbox-based combat where you can put your hammer inside the beast and then swing feels silly.

I didn’t like the equipment upgrades much as they only get interesting late in the game and all weapons of the same base type are essentially the same.

ME is a relatively bland shooter IMO.

On KotOR you may be missing the point. It barely has any gameplay. Combat is pretty easy and over quickly. The point of anything in that game is storytelling and fun quests, the mechanics are just good enough to not get in your way too much.

One thing to note is that many people agree that Taris sucks because it is mostly linear and the fun quests only start when the game opens up. Taris may be necessary to set up the plot, though.

We still have a lot of roofs that could have solar on them. Scaling up nuclear will deplete fuel mines faster because the isotopes that are legal due to arms treaties are pretty limited.

It is the best on the market but unfortunately they just use Google underneath plus their own blog index. And at least to me it seems it isn’t going in a better direction.

I feel like the quality of her videos is way down but I am ND and found that video pretty neutral.

I skimmed a transcript just now because I wanted to understand why people are so disproportionately mad about it. She mentions Autism Speaks and does not immediately condemn it. Is that it? I wouldn’t say that counts as being wrong on everything.

I’m tired of (especially internet) discourse where shouting which camp you belong to is most important. One good example is when people accused Amnesty of siding with Russia because they reported on Ukrainian warcrimes. Nothing is truly neutral but I much prefer information or thought experiments over the virtue signaling that has taken over the internet.

You will not convince people to change their mind by shouting in their faces that your point of view is correct. Granted, you usually wont change people’s mind online anyway, except entrenching them deeper into their existing beliefs. I don’t think that is a good thing regardless of the side they take. It leads to seeing fellow humans as monsters just because they are wrong about something.

While researching another issue, I found some evidence that a vegan diet can be better than the average meat diet. This could be because the meat in pet food is of poor quality and is more likely to be spoiled than plants.

You could of course grow mice or purchase expensive meats but once it is well-rearched, a vegan diet may be a more economical way to provide a good nutrient profile.

Does it matter? A discussion is not about signalling that you support the correct side even though social media seems to think so.

Pyre is an interesting sports game IMO because it doesn’t try to look like any real sport.

The main character in I, Robot is Dr. Susan Calvin. It also features Donovan and Powell. Elijah is from the robot trilogy, which happens centuries after I, Robot.

I would say the only thing the movie has in common with the book is that it mentions the book’s main character and the laws of robotics. The book is all about weird behavior of robots that actually obey the laws but the movie just treats them as some corporate doublespeak.

Growing it in a lab is likely worse that growing it in an animal. Synthetic imitations are the only efficient replacement.

I calculated at one point that if you ride a bike instead of a car but replenish the calories with pure beef, it is better to ride the car. So diet matters.

Of course there is a limit. The question is how high it is. For instance, at high enough CO2 concentrations, the greenhouse effect doesn’t get much stronger anymore. Also, the more CO2, the faster it dissapears by eroding rocks. That happens on a geological timescale, though.

If we did something to lower temperature, I’d be very worried about the CO2 concentration’s other effect: feeling like suffocating all the time.