Ↄ shaped

I want a comic about a friendly android who finds humor in spooking humans with red eyes (and other things).

Don’t forget the fact that this is all started by horny plants who only dress up nicely and offer sweets to allure innocent little bees because dirty as they are plants want bees to touch their genitalia to smear pollen all over their bodies as the little ones fly from plant to plant, exchanging pollen by means of a never ending bukkake.

Considering the comfy curled up pose of the cat I was thinking since AI already has problems generating hair/fingers/toes due to their variety, how difficult would sleeping/lying cats be.

It’s a vampire cat!

I just checked. My own pooper is more or less halfway between my booper and my feet. So since I am a rept if I were a reptile I would be measured only half my current human size.

And what are you, a Klingon?

Qo’

The reason I use the term “human” is because this phenomenon seems to exist throughout all of history, it wasn’t limited to one specific person or culture or era. This is also why I gave so many examples. If you think there’s a better way to convey the point without using this term, let me know.

Is this similar to the ozone depletion and ozone holes that were always a big deal in the early 2000s and had lead to bans of chlorofluorocarbons eg in refrigerants and other products, or is this an entirely different topic?

To me it sounds similar so I wonder why the danger of Earth losing its atmosphere “very quickly” hadn’t caused panic back then, it was only things like “stay inside so you don’t get sunburns”. Though the atmosphere disappearing would be a way bigger deal.

I didn’t say it’d kill all complex life, I said complex life would be greatly impacted.

True! I tried to acknowledge that with my first paragraph and add that they already are greatly impacted. My second paragraph wasn’t aimed at your person, I merely wanted to bring it up/let it out.

And a messed up ozone layer means the atmosphere will… disappear?

Just a heads up, you quoted me writing “kill all complex life (…) is exaggerating”. Then as far as I understand you wrote “it absolutely is [an exaggeration]”. Then you argued that surely microbes would survive. However, to my knowledge microbes do not count as complex life. Was that intentional?

will destroy the ozone layer, without which the earth will lose its atmosphere relatively quickly.

What?

Well disruptions of a system eventually lead to new, different forms of stability where things will settle down. I can’t imagine life is as fragile as you make it.

Having the ability to kill all complex life sounds like a misconception humans made up. After all, humankind always liked feeling important, feeling special and putting itself in the center: pretending they life at the center of a disc, pretending the whole universe revolves around the planet, pretending only human bodies were inhabited by an eternal soul, pretending an all-powerful being cared about them, pretending they’re the peak of evolution, pretending machines could never outperform them.

Humans always try to find new things that make them unique and set them apart from other forms of life. Yet they keep getting disproven.

Do I understand this right that the really big argument here is actually ocean acidification? I can’t really believe that this wouldn’t open up niches for other life forms in oceans. I’m certain that complex animals will be greatly impacted - they already are - but temperature shifts will lead to animals migrating and complex life will keep flourishing one way or another.

I feel as though the assumption that humans had the ability to kill all complex life like some people suggest is exaggerating the significance of humans. To my understanding humans have about the same impact as many other of the more impactful species do and while many have lead to big changes on the planet, to my knowledge none have managed to come close to “ending all life”. That’s reserved for grander desasters, either from inside Earth or extraterrestrial.

Life existed long before there were any significant levels of oxygen in the air. I doubt humans can undo much of the ~20% oxygen level that exists today. And I think that’s reason enough that life even bigger than microbes won’t die out.

Yes all life will perish, but the earth itself will continue.

Why would all life perish? From what I’ve heard and read about nuclear disaster exclusion zones, humans disappearing tends to make space for other forms of life that had previously been displaced by cities full of humans and such. To my understanding long time life probably won’t care about anything for the next few million years.

Short term many or most humans might die or suffer. I don’t think it’s easy to predict how fragile humankind is, civilization may crumble. I doubt all of humankind will be gone in a thousand years, though I wouldn’t bet against a semi “post apocalyptic” future.

I’ve played a few rounds of digital Daybreak on BGA. It plays pretty nice, though difficulty seems to increase a lot outside the solo version. I worry that fiddling with CO2 tokens could get tedious in the printed version. The QR Code idea is nice.

human population growth is the biggest driver by far

I argue that the biggest driver for CO₂ emissions at the moment is not population growth, but rather the rise of the quality of living in high population low income regions such as China, India, etc.

preserving quality of life should be the stated objectives

Does that mean you also want the many inequalities to remain? CO₂ emissions per person are spread as unequal as wealth. Demanding that people are allowed to continue living far above the carrying capacity of the Earth while others live far below is not a solution to the problem.

People argue something along the lines of “spending a lot of energy gives a good quality of life” and to some extend this is true. Though when people spend an hour or two to drive to work in a private car 5 days a week that doesn’t seem like a good quality of living to me.

To fight climate change without having to miss out on a good quality of living it’s important that people get the most “bang for their buck” as far as CO₂ emmissions are concerned. I argue that things like watching Formula 1 drivers, owning private jets or even just doing long communes to work by car are among the WORST bang for your CO₂-buck anybody can get. Riding a bike, having a picnic in a local park or commuting via public transportation (which lets you do other things like playing on your phone, reading a book or chatting with people while waiting) seem to be way better options.

I’ve had a similar experience with expansions, but feel it heavily depends on the game / on the expansion.

On the topic of over-complicating the game, oftentimes expansions expect you to have a good understanding of the base game and its core mechanics. The idea seems to then be “for all those people who loved the base game and played it for a long time, here’s a new layer of complexity to keep you entertained for the next couple weeks/months/years”. In other words, you’d only buy them if you are already very familiar and want more depth, more content, more mechanics.

However, sometimes expansions seem to significantly alter the core mechanics of a game that you’ve gotten used to and that you loved. Occasionally that can lead to a loss of mechanics that some players loved. If an expansion destroys the things I loved about a game, then of course I wouldn’t like it.

Uh yeah I probably trailed off topic a bit, just wanted to share some thoughts on expansions.

It’s such an extremely popular game considering its weight, it’s the first game I began writing a list of people who want to play it for. I now know at least 15 people who want to play it and around half of them consider it one of their favourite games. I brought it once to work, played with two colleagues and then one of them thought about buying it. It’s surprisingly easy to find people who love it.

If you live in a city try to find some public board game groups or events and poke around a bit, it really shouldn’t be too hard to find players for this particular game. I’d say at least 10% of regular boardgamers want to play it. So if you visit some events with 10-30 attendees each then chances are you’ll find a handful of people who’re interested.

I suggest you play at least 3-4 of the simple spirits at least once then you will have an easier time explaining their powers effects to beginners, should any questions arise. Also, don’t play a new spirit yourself. You will need some time to help out people who ask questions during the game so try to play a spirit you’re already familiar with, that way you don’t get distracted so much while analyzing your own options.