D

Don’t give me hope.

I was really into D, but I gave up on it because it seemed kind of dead. It’s often not mentioned in long lists of languages (i.e. I think Stack Overflow’s report did not mention it), and I think I remember once looking at a list of projects that used D and most of them were dead. I think I also remember once seeing a list of companies that used D, and when I looked up one of them I found out it didn’t exist anymore 😐️

I don’t think there’s anything stopping modern games from having the same vibes, and being creative with graphics. I’d say one example of a modern game with high res graphics, realistic water, and even ray tracing, which still looks very unique and distinct is Paradise Killer. Another one that also looks quite modern in some ways while still being very distinct in its own way, is Heaven’s Vault. It’s a choice made by AAA studios because photorealistic visuals tend to attract more eyes and sell better, even if people get bored of the game quite quickly.

And the thing is, AC Unity - which came out in 2014 - still looks better than the majority of AAA games I see nowadays, and despite the large crowds which are a bit CPU demanding it still has much lower requirements than those games that look worse.

EDIT: And if you just want games that actually look retro and old school, there are some from indie devs doing that; examples include: Dread Delusion, The Case of the Golden Idol, Death Trash, Felvidek, Return of the Obra Dinn.

Ah, I see, I definitely agree with everything you’re saying; I just got a bit confused. When you talked about “green option”, I was thinking something like fast fashion vs clothes that will last, for example.

I’m not completely sure of what point you’re making. Would you buy the cheaper product even if you could afford the more expensive green one?

Because if the answer is “no”, then you are still agreeing with OP; and if the answer is “yes” then you are saying you want to knowingly buy something that is harmful for the environment and encourage a company to make more of it, while deflecting responsibly and saying that corpos and govs are the ones who have to do something.

“When nuclear fallout happens”

How would using nuclear as a source of energy (not weapons) result in a nuclear fallout, exactly? A nuclear fallout would result of nuclear superpowers (countries that possess nuclear warheads) initiating a nuclear war; meaning there would be nuclear warheads flying and detonating all over the world. There’s no reason a nuclear fallout would result from using fission as an energy source.

The materials you mention are classified as “low level waste”, and they are “materials which contain small amounts of mostly short-lived radioactivity”, and they actually make up 94% of waste in the Uk, but according to this article, it’s 95%.

96% of spent nuclear fuel is Uranium, which can be reused.

Waste storage so far was managed so corruptly and incompetently that it is already failing after 50 years

Purely anecdotal; here’s a different anecdote.

Here’s is also a National Geographic article about this topic, and here is another.

Here is also the mortality rate of different sources of energy in 2012, and here it is in 2022. You’ll notice that after heavy R&D in renewables, nuclear is still the second safest; with all top three being really close, but hydro being a far 4th.

Please stop with the fear based, anti-scientific, rhetoric. I shouldn’t feel like I’m arguing with climate deniers or pro oilers when talking with supposed environmentalists. Which reminds of the reason why this is so important: renewables alone still can’t meet the energy demand without the assistance of fossil fuels, and the energy requirements keep rising:

“Clean sources of generation are set to cover all of the world’s additional electricity demand over the next three years” - they are accounting for nuclear, but nevertheless: “Low-emissions sources are expected to account for almost half of the world’s electricity generation by 2026”.

Almost half, by 2026, accounting for nuclear. And we are still getting warmer.

It has already been solved, and a search should tell you all about it.

I’m still on mobile, so sharing links is still a pain, but a few key things:

Nuclear waste is produced quite slowly, so whatever cost you associate with storage is over a large period of time; we have the technology to build centrals that can use that waste to produce more energy, reducing waste even further.

No, you have one safer option (solar), and just barely. And again, that is after a decade of heavy investment and development. The data doesn’t lie. You can’t just just throw out science and data when it doesn’t serve you. Stop spreading BS. You are quite literally spreading misinformation.

Don’t know, you’d have to ask the experts; what I do know is that the data shows nuclear is safer than wind and much safer than hydro.

I’m on mobile right now so it’s convenient to find and post it, but if you want you can scroll my profile and you should some older comments with the data and sources.

Again, this is baseless, unscientific, fear mongering. Nuclear is the second safest energy source, not far from solar. And still far safer than for ex. hydro, which destroys environments, and in that case it’s not an “if”.

Honestly,I feel like I’m back in like 2005 arguing against pro-oil people; in this case it’s about renewables, but the arguments are still unscientific and usually based around “But tHe ecOnOMy”.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Edit: Here is the mortality rate of different sources of energy in 2012, and here it is in 2022.

Most of the benefits and drawbacks you mention only became a reality after a decade of heavy focus and investment on renewables, with no similar focus on nuclear. It could be argued that if the same investment and focused had been applied to it, then none of those arguments would be true. In fact, back then those were the same arguments used against renewables.

In other words, the arguments of “but money, and look at the economy” are absolute shit, and they are the reason we spent so long on oil. The facts it’s now used in favor of renewables and to shut down discussion of other alternatives is quite ironic.

Edit: To add, as I’ve mentioned somewhere else:

“Low-emissions sources are expected to account for almost half of the world’s electricity generation by 2026.”

That’s half, by 2026, and they are accounting for nuclear. That means the other 50% will still be fossil fuels. Meanwhile, the planet is getting warmer, some places are going underwater, and we are getting extreme weather events more and more frequently. “But-but, the economy!”

Because it’s still the second safest energy source, very close behind solar. And about 10 years ago, before heavy investment in renewables, it was the safest.

This is like being afraid of airplanes because things only have to go wrong once for hundreds to die.

Edit: Here is the mortality rate of different sources of energy in 2012, and here it is in 2022.

When I watched the video, I was shocked this even was a thing that happened.

I heard about the controversy for a while, heard some people say when they saw the fight they “understood why there was questioning”, and heard something about a punch. As an avid MMA fan, I expected a scary knockout, like those where you hold your breath until you see the person start moving again.

Imagine my surprise when I finally saw the video, and watched an Olympic boxing fight for the first time. I see of them wearing headgear, one of them gets hit with a few good punches, gets to pause to adjust headgear, gets hit with a few more good punches and calls off the fight without her knees ever even buckling or getting stunned, and doesn’t even have a mark on her face. Perhaps the neatest, least harmful fight I’ve ever seen.

To be clear, I don’t hold it against her for realizing she probably won’t be winning and quitting before taking unnecessary damage, I’m just shocked anyone would think Imane is trans or a man based on that fight. Imagine if those people ever saw Amanda Nunes, or Dakota Ditcheva, or Zhang Weili. But I’d guess most of those people never actual watch women compete in any sports unless there is a controversy like this one, at which point they become experts.

I don’t know much about her, but directly from the wiki:

The rate at which Harris’s office prosecuted marijuana crimes was higher than the rate under Hallinan, but the number of defendants sentenced to state prison for such offenses was substantially lower.[76] Prosecutions for low-level marijuana offenses were rare under Harris, and her office had a policy of not pursuing jail time for marijuana possession offenses.[76]

It sounds like her position on weed is not exactly what people are painting it as. At least these comments make it seem much worse than it is according to the wiki.

EDIT:

According to this, she even supported a bill in 2019 to legalize marijuana at a federal level, tax it, and use that money to (according to this):

Create a community reinvestment fund to reinvest in communities most impacted by the failed War on Drugs and allow those funds to be invested in the following programs:

Job training;

Reentry services;

Expenses related to the expungement of convictions;

Public libraries;

Community centers;

Programs and opportunities dedicated to youth; and

Health education

I don’t know if it’s on purpose, but you are definitely spreading misinformation.

Perhaps not very patient gamer, but I think I’ll give Another Crab’s Treasure a go.

It’s very hard for me to feel motivated to play new games nowadays, but that one did spike my interest - seems more fun than Elden Ring tbh, which kinda feels like a generic souls-like - and it’s got great reviews and isn’t too expensive, so I think I’ll try it out.

Mind if I ask what you are basing this on? Because the experience I’m having in my country tells me that would probably just reinforce the status quo, and then the far-right would have a huge increase.

In my country the center-“left” soc-dems (who have been leaning more and more liberal) were in power since 2014, with a majority on the left; in 2022 that party got a majority of votes, and the rest of the left loss a lot of votes, but the right was still in minority. This has essentially resulted in them being able to keep doing whatever they want and what they’ve always done and not keep their promises because they know a bunch of people always vote for them anyway because “it’s them or the right wins!”. Then in late 2023 there was a corruption scandal that resulted in us having new elections early this year where the far right saw unprecedented growth, the “center”-right party won the elections, and there is now a majority right in parliament. At no point during these 10 years did our country turn further left; the right certainly didn’t.

My point is, based on that, I would guess that having liberals (who are the ones in charge of the Dems) in power so long with a majority would just result in them consolidating power, the rest of the left to be pushed out, and eventually for the far right to see a renewed growth.

The real solution would either be for everyone to vote for a new different left-wing party (if we’re already talking about convincing “everyone” to vote for Dems, why not dream a little higher?), or turn to mutual aid and grassroots movements. And a party that wins elections will almost certainly never want to change the electoral system because they benefit from it the most; again, the best hope for that might be getting behind one party whose mission purpose is exactly to turn away from a 2 party system.

The grass is always greener on the other side. Americans who think companies don’t pay enough, housing price is too high, fuel is too expensive, etc., would be shocked to see how bad it is in Portugal. You can have a degree in CS and go work as a Software Engineer, and you still won’t have enough money to rent a home in the city. After a few years, if you manage to get some raises (good luck), you’ll maybe have enough for a small flat.

Health care is much cheaper than the US, but that doesn’t mean much when there are no doctors or nurses, and maternity wards start closing down.

We have people who are unqualified to teach having to teach school classes because there is no one else available; also some teachers have to live in their cars because they can’t afford a home in the area they teach.

I could keep naming things. And progressive in what way? Drugs are decriminalized, but that’s not the same as legal, and it’s still illegal to sell weed unlike in the US. Both the US and Portugal have had same sex marriage and adoption for years now. And I also don’t think trans rights are much better in Portugal than in the US; so I’m not entirely sure in what way it’s more progressive, to be honest.

And this is not to mention all the government scandals we’ve had in the last 15 years; probably the same or more as the US, you just don’t hear about it because it’s not the US.

But to get back to the point:

That means they are forced to cater their policies at least a little bit toward all those people, and it ends up having a real meaningful impact on their platform.

No they’re not, trust me. Source: the reason for our last elections. Or how we’ve (the people, through taxes) had to sink a ridiculous amount of money into a national airliner that made no money, and recently when it seemed to be turning a profit after decades, they began to talk about privatizing it, which is something the right had been demanding for a long time now.

If you always vote for someone, they have no incentive to do anything for you; they know they get your vote anyway. If you don’t vote for them, then they have an incentive to try and appeal to you in order to get your vote.

Right, but the point still stands that voting tactically just reinforces the status quo.

Two examples from the last election:

Lisbon, which gets to decide 48 of the seats (the most):

PS (currently leading party) won 21 of the 48 seats in Lisbon. If half their voters actually spread their votes amongst the left, the second-largest party (PSD) would still have only got 13, the IL party 4, and the far right party 4. The power of the right would not have changed, but PS would only have 10 while the left would be a lot more powerful, and we would not have been subjected to a majority victory from PS.

Portalegre, which gets to decide 2 of the seats (the least):

PS won both, with 47% of the votes. PSD won 0 with 23%. In this scenario, if half of the PS votes went to the left, then PS would still have 1, and PSD would also have got 1 - hardly a change on the surface, but the result is that people could look at it and see the other left parties also have some decent representation, maybe it’s not crazy to vote for them and they are a viable alternative. Instead, because the votes went all to PS, everyone is now engaged in a self-fulfilling prophecy: “I should vote for PS! Why? Because they’re the closest party to the left with a change of winning. Why? Because everyone always votes for PS.”.

And that’s how you end up with the same two parties in power for 49 years, while everyone is always complaining about how much they suck the whole time and that nothing changes: “We have to vote for X, because not X doesn’t have a change of winning, because we’re always voting for X; also, not X would probably be just as corrupt and incompetent as X because I’m just guessing they are”. I’ve been hearing that logic since I was a child - the words and rhetoric are ingrained in my brain, and every time I hear the word “elections” the voices pop up in my head.

I was gonna make this a reply, but I guess it fits as a general comment.

There will always be some excuse to maintain the status quo.

In the USA people say it’s because of “first past the post”(*). But in Portugal there is no such thing. We have a parliamentary system (technically semi-presidential, but for practical purposes parliamentary) but somehow people still find an excuse to always maintain the status quo. Since we’ve been a democracy (49 years), only two parties have ever been in power. Before the last elections, we had 9 parties in parliament. After several decades of incompetence, and everyone complaining about how corrupt the system and politicians are, the same party won the last elections with a majority vote, and now we have 8 parties in parliament. Basically, we’re not too far from a two-party system.

This happens because there’s always some excuse to compromise; in my country, the excuse/logic to rally behind the centrists and put them in power is something like “look how much the extreme right is growing, we have to keep them at bay! Plus, the other parties are probably as bad and corrupt anyway!”, with the expression “useful vote” thrown around a lot. Never mind the fact the far right are growing due to the incompetence of the people currently in power, and that, being a parliamentary system, a vote for any non-right wing party already works to keep the right at bay. And the cherry on top is how everyone gas lits themselves with “the other parties that never had any power are probably as bad and corrupt as the parties that have been in power for decades and which we know for a fact are bad and corrupt”.

This isn’t very eloquently written, but hopefully the point comes across: some people always expect you to “compromise” with them by doing exactly what they want, while they don’t compromise at all; and some people create a self full fulling prophecy by convincing themselves from the start that there are no other options. I can’t speak 100% for the USA because I don’t understand the system as well, but at least in my country the reality is that if everyone actually voted for the people they most align with, we could still keep the right at bay and not put all the power in the hands of the “moderates”.

(*)but, unless I am massively mistaken, if a third party gets enough votes they will still get seats in parliament which should still give them power, or at least still take power away from another.

Full disclosure, I only read the first 3 paragraphs because it seems you missed a key part of my point:

It’s directed at people who could do more, but actively chose not to, and then blame the system and say policy needs to change.

If you have transports close to home that can take you to your work place, but you choose to drive a car anyway, then the problem isn’t the state giving it a priority over other options, the problem is you. Clearly, the state improving transports and making them more accessible wouldn’t make a difference to you.

And are you arguing that most people east most of their meals at fast food places? Because I’m sure we both know that’s not true. Firstly, at least where I live that’s not affordable, fast food or not. Most people do their shopping around once a week and cook at home, because that’s what is actually affordable to most people. Secondly, most fast food places offer vegan and vegetarian options nowadays, and even before that plenty of them offered chicken or fish, both of which are much better than beef, and even pork. So I really don’t understand how this is a reasonable excuse for the incredibly large consumption of beef, as well as dairy products. You can also go on any big forum that doesn’t skew left so much and doesn’t care so much about the environment, and you’ll quickly find out most people’s views on vegans and vegetarians, and see that for most people it is not an access issue.

And why do you need disposable plastic goods? I’m sure you can come up with some rare scenario like a 1 in 10000 occurrence that would justify it, but that’s very obviously beside the point because of what I said at the start. Do you need to buy sodas, which come in plastic bottles? Do you need to buy water in plastic bottles? Do you need disposable plastic utensils, like forks, knifes, plates, cups? Because all those sell quite well around the world. I’ll also add this comment someone wrote in another thread a while ago:

what would happen if everyone turned around and said ‘you know what, fuck companies that sell drinks in bottles i’m never going to be without my refillable bottle’ how long would coca-cola keep producing 100 billion plastic bottles a year? what would they do with them?

But if James Quincey said ‘fuck it, I’m not producing plastic bottles anymore they’re bad for the planet’ but 8 billion people said ‘oh ok, well we’re still going to regularly buy drinks in plastic bottles’ the numbers of plastic bottles being made would dip slightly but only while Ramon Laguarta rushed to spend the flood of money now coming in to scale up production at pepsi co.

It’s a two way problem. As long as most people keep wanting those things, then they will keep being produced. And policy will not change it unless you install a dictatorship.

Anyway, like I said, I didn’t read the rest of the comment because it seems you missed an important cornerstone of my point, and I’m too tired to keep arguing, so I’m sorry but I’ll leave it there. Have a good night or day wherever you are.