Interestingly that’s the exact thing I loved about Hollow Knight. I got so immersed in the exploration specifically because I got lost. On my first playthrough I ended up sequence breaking the game and cleared out deepnest, ancient basin, hive and kingdoms end before the city of tears. I was way out of my depth and I loved every moment of it.

Considering Xbox already announced Silksong releasing within a year a few years back I’m not even going to believe the release announcement unless I can put the game in my shopping cart.

Tariffs are a way to bring manufacturing back into the country, but why have blanket tariffs instead of targeting specific sectors to incentivize bringing back manufacturing in those sectors?

And tariffs are not the only way to bring manufacturing back, government can subsidize bringing manufacturing back. Biden did that with the CHIPS act, where are Trump equivalent of the CHIPS act?

Furthermore, if the plan is to bring manufacturing home why is Trump trying to kill the CHIPS act?

And why is he gutting education when it’s obvious to anyone that manufacturing requires skilled labor?

He’s doing only one thing (and he’s doing that very poorly) that is supposed to bring manufacturing back and everything else he does more or less works against bringing manufacturing back. You have to have blinders on to really believe he’s trying to bring manufacturing back to America.

I didn’t know the original game was remade. I assumed you meant layers of fear 2 because the original layers of fear wasn’t even on Unreal Engine and Layers of fear 2 is on UE4. Nothing I said was explicitly wrong. It was wrong in the context only because you weren’t precise with what you’re saying.

And how nice of you to pick out the one thing I was wrong on while completely ignoring all the other examples. For instance how the fuck can you put Subnautica 2 on that list when it’s not even in early access?

Well that’s a pretty shit list. You have there games that aren’t using UE5 (Layers of Fear 2), that are known to have poor performance (STALKER 2), that just released into early access (Inzoi) and that haven’t even released into early access (Subnautica 2).

I’d throw half the list out the window, actually probably more because the other half of the list are mostly games I don’t know enough to evaluate their performance.

Can you give one example where Bethesda has actually attacked the modding community?

I haven’t see how the level scaling works, but I’m assuming it works exactly like OG Oblivion for two reasons. First is that the underlying game logic is OG Oblivion and second, whether you liked it not, the level scaling was very much in the DNA of Oblivion so it kinda has to be there to feel like Oblivion. That said, the new leveling system looks like it might make the level scaling less horrid.

And so far from what I watched others play, the world is still as barren and boring as OG Oblivion. Personally I’m going wait for Skyblivion because the barren world was the main reason I didn’t enjoy Oblivion.

And if we were all smart people we would have far less laws. Sometimes laws protect us from ourselves. Anyone who has experience with addiction knows how hard it is to just stop. Instead of blaming people for their inability to stop we should emphatize and understand that this needs an intervention. If these predatory practices were illegal those people wouldn’t need to stop themselves because they wouldn’t be put in that situation in the first place.

From what I’ve read it’s not actually made by Bethesda, it isn’t using the creation engine and there are gameplay changes.

That information turned me from not caring to checking out what people will say when it releases.

I want to nitpick on this, because I’m told a lot of people use these apps, match, and then never actually ask the other person out. They then are sometimes puzzled why they’re not going on dates.

I’m not sure if you’re implying they’re the same person, as in they won’t ask anyone out and then wonder why nobody goes out with them? Because that I can’t really explain. I guess maybe they’re shy or they think the other person should be asking them out, but if you’re going to leave it solely to chance then you have to accept that there’s a chance you never get asked out. But if someone is thinks they’re trying but it just doesn’t happen, then that needs a more deeper dive into why it wouldn’t happen. From my experience most of the time the people I didn’t go out with were people who were closed off, so my most general advice in that case would be to try to be more open. Nobody wants to pry answers out of you. Talk about yourself, or if you don’t like talking about yourself be more proactive in getting to know the other person. Be interested in them and let them be interested in you.

It also helps filter out “oh, she doesn’t date men”, “wow, he’s anti-vax”, “he doesn’t want kids, ever, and i do” kind of stuff. At least, when the app is working and not fully enshittified. That stuff is valuable.

That as well. Some people put in their bios clear no-nos and I think that’s great.

You being unnecessarily aggressive does not intimidate me. I simply didn’t appreciate the tone because when you act that way all you’re showing is that you can’t have a civil discussion.

And I agree that there are no shortcuts to socializing. But this “go out there and date” advice isn’t going to help anyone. It’s like telling someone living their car “just build a house”. It does nothing in regards to helping them figure out how to do that.

And I’m not sure what you’re even complaining about regarding dating apps. The date isn’t happening in the app. In the end they still have to go out there and date, the dating app simply helps them get to that step. The dating app replaces only the “asking someone out” step, not the actual date itself. It takes a small step out of the whole dating process and you’re acting like that’s the entire problem. At the end of the day it doesn’t really matter if you physically asked someone out or if you matched on Tinder and asked them out, because when it comes to the actual date you still have to put yourself out there. Unless the online dating has warped into something completely different within the last 10 years they still need to learn how to have a conversation, how to pick up cues and find the confidence to make a move. The only thing online dating changes is that people don’t need to take a rejection straight to their face and get embarrassed into never trying again.

I’m sorry. I forgot I’m talking to a big alpha male who can only express themselves in an aggressive tone. My bad. And I’m sure your advice of “Just get over yourself and get out there you fucking pussy” is unbelievably useful to all those people who struggle to date. They definitely couldn’t have come up with that on their own. And of course fuck online dating because big stonk alpha no likey thing they no understand.

Buy a Delorean, find doc Brown and flux capacitor yourself back to the 80s where you belong.

I didn’t say dating doesn’t work. I also dated a bunch from my regular circle but eventually decided to switch to Tinder because I didn’t want intimate relations ruining my friends groups. Or at the very least I didn’t want to be the whose intimate relations would ruin friendships. That was my reason to go to Tinder.

And with my experience on Tinder what I did say was that Tinder is not some creepy or stupid way to go about dating. You don’t need to turn it into some kind a hobby or a profession. You don’t need to start a relationship (in it’s most general meaning) with some kind of expectations of intimacy or whatever. You don’t need a perfectly made profile. Those are the assumptions people have when they don’t understand Tinder. It’s a tool to meet people outside of your regular circle. You’re building this tool and the followup date to be bigger than it needs to be and of course it’s going to look creepy and stupid, you’re making it creepy and stupid. Here’s how I used Tinder.

I put minimum effort into swiping. I didn’t spend any time analyzing some images or bios or anything like that, if there was anything that remotely piqued my interest I would swipe right. If there was a match then texting was pretty much a vibe check, because at that point there was still nothing tangible and thus also no reason to put in a lot of effort. If they’re cool I would offer to go out, have a coffee or a walk in the park or anything neutral that still gives us the space to have a chat and figure out who we’re really meeting. A meeting is still not a commitment so I didn’t treat is as such. If they ghosted they ghosted and I’d just do something else. When we actually met I didn’t treat them like some kind of a checklist of my expectations for them. In fact I had no expectations for them. I had am idea of who I’m looking for but I’d also have to match who they’re looking for to actually have a match between us, so no reason to expect anything at that point. And the date would be just chatting and learning who they are and I made a lot of friends that way because there wasn’t anything romantic there but they were cool people.

I don’t think there’s anything particularly creepy or stupid about that. The first part seems creepy but that’s just how the tool works. If someone gave you a list of random 100 people and told you to figure out how who you’d want to meet you’d probably do the exact same thing because going in-depth with 100 people before you’ve even met them is creepy as nobody would (nor should) put in that much effort.

When exactly was that “real civilization”? When people were being arranged into marriages? Or when people would put ads into newspapers to find love? Or when dating shows started on TV? The next step after TV was pretty much Tinder. We have never been above using “creepy and stupid” options.

I don’t get the hate dating apps get. It’s a tool like every other, it helps you meet people outside of your regular circle. It’s not ideal because it’s next to impossible to everything you are into a short profile but it’s better than the solutions we came up before. The issue is that people don’t know how to use Tinder. Most people have no idea what their profile should look like, they put too much importance on any kind of a match and then they try too hard to get anywhere. Tinder match is the real world equivalent of locking your eyes someone on the street or a bar or a cafe or whatever. Just because that happened doesn’t mean anything more will happen. You don’t run after everyone who looks at you begging them to date you. So why do that on Tinder?

I’ve never had my criticism of the American democratic party removed nor my leftist views. All I’ve seen get removed are posts and comments showing support of Luigi Mangione (in the context of killing the wealthy). And the instances in question that world has defederated are lemmygrad (which if the name isn’t a big enough hint is a Leninist instance where they praise the USSR and China, hate anything western and ban anyone disagreeing with them) and Hexbear (who are politically adjacent to Lemmygrad but were banned by most instance because they were always brigading other instances and being generally annoying).

The only reason the other person is bringing up the defederation as a negative is because he ideologically agrees with those two instances. You can decide for yourself whether to value his opinion or not.

Okay. I looked up the definition of ad hominem and I came to a conclusion, it’s still ad hominem. Maybe you should learn what is it and then come back when you’ve actually got something to say.

Sure.

Sounds like projection on your part.

Ad hominem

Again, no. You can’t address what he said, so you’re making up your own strawman.

Ad hominem

What, specifically, are you accusing him of doing wrong? Sounds like you just don’t like him disagreeing with you.

Ad hominem

OP has explicitly said otherwise, but you’ve already established you feel entitled to tell people their own opinions.

Yes, because OP gave him the benefit of doubt because OP thought he’s not a bad actor. But not that it matter because the second part of your one-liner goes back to Ad hominem.

Any actual examples though?

Besides the one I mentioned? Well there’s also the one where he’s pushed about being critical of Russia’s actions he deflects to America being worse.

Uhuh. Still seems like you’re the one arguing in bad faith.

Ad hominem

You have indeed demonstrated that your were arguing in bad faith from the start and that you’re just salty someone disagreed with you.

Ad hominem conclusion.

Where is the substance?

Removed by mod

No. He proceeded to say my argument is based on anecdotal evidence (which I had no problem acknowledging because personal experiences are subjective even if they are personal experiences of an entire group of people) only to turn around and present an even more anecdotal evidence than mine (the experience of a single individual) as something factual, and then double down defending it when called out about it being anecdotal evidence. He will dismiss or deflect any kind of argument he doesn’t agree with and then present his own arguments that are just as fallible to the reasons he uses to dismiss arguments. He’s not in discussions in good faith, he refuses to question his own beliefs and he only pushes his own beliefs onto others.

I’m not salty about talking to him, I simply don’t see any value in having a discussion where the only possible outcome is him being right about everything and me being wrong about everything. Just look at the thread here. I’ll give you an example. OP clarified who he meant by tankies.

People who

Support modern russia and/or are opposed to Ukraine Deny that the Uyghurs were mistreated by china Think the DRPK is a nice place to live right now.

and his response to that was:

Most Marxists do not uncritically support Russia, though opposition to the Nationalists like Azov in Ukraine is something common on the Left, and believe Russia’s anti-US stance is beneficial for the Global South (see the string of African liberation movements in the past few years).

Translation. We don’t fully support Russia but we do support Russia for reasons not at all related to the conflict in question.

Most Marxists can agree that the Uyghur people have been placed in re-education camps, but most do not believe they are being systemically murdered en masse like many people report.

Translation. We can (which doesn’t mean you actually do) accept Uyghurs have been mistreated, but we do (no longer can) not accept the systematical mistreatment. (which is the core of the criticism when it comes to the treatment of Uyghurs, not to mention the allegations of torture and sterilization etc. that are also completely glossed over).

Most Marxists think the DPRK is doing surprisingly well for a country under extreme embargoes and was subject to more tons of bombs than the pacific front in World War II, not that it would be preferable to live there than in a highly developed country free from those problems.

Translation. DPRK would be a nice place to live right now if not for those pesky embargoes and bombs (notice not a single criticism at the authoritarian government that is arguably the biggest reason DPRK is not a good place to live at)

And then when OP gives him an inch in good faith he takes the whole inch and pushes OP to “not call people tankies” even though he’s exactly the kind of person OP is calling out.

There are more examples of him being disingenuous, deflecting arguments that push him to admit even the slightest of mistakes and then pushing his own agenda on others. No examples of him dismissing valid arguments in this thread but I’m sure people can find those in other threads. And with that I think I’ve made my point to the people will listen.

Don’t bother with him, I’ve tagged him as “bad actor” because he might seem reasonable at first glance but if you start pushing him on topics you know better than him it quickly becomes clear he’s arguing in bad faith.