Sell a barrel of oil to a man and he will soon buy a another. Sell a solar panel for a man and he wont need another one.

Gas stations, tanker trucks, oil pipelines, ect

These are big reason for the push back also. Companies have spend hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars building the infrastructure for fossil fuels and they will fight for keeping those investments alive.

Another thing slowing down clean energy is that wind and solarpower arent yet as reliable as coal power. Cities and nations can calculate how much coal or fossil fuel they need to keep lights on and stockpile fossile fuels for future use easily and they work even if there is no wind or sky is cloudy.

Hydroelectric is renewable and quite reliable, but its not neccessarilly good for enviroment either. Geothermal would be great, but its really expensive and its not possible to harvest everywhere in the world.

My personal opinion is that nuclear power with auxilary solar, wind and hydroelectrics would be best compination. Especially since battery technology is currently taking big leap with solid state batteries and it seems we might soon have electric vechicles with reasonable range. Even more so if the new batteries are as safe as manufactorers claim and in case of accident there is less of an risk of the unholy hellfire batteryfires are currently.

Well the cant was more in the terms of “you cant have a viable business” than “its physically impossible”. I mean in a theory it would be possible to create moonbase and power it up with AA-batteries, but its just not something that can be done.

Also with batteries you did not say anything about what would happen to the empty ones. There would be logistical hurdle to overcome with those. Even the cheapest industrial sized battery would still be leagues more expensive than the sheetmetal used to transport oil.

Again, not talking trying to defend fossilfuels. Just making points why big companies are fighting against the change.

What happens to those expensive batteries containing rare-earthminerals after whom ever has used them? Do you just let them have those or do you buy them back and transport them empty or what?

Converting energy to create hydrogen is fairly inefficient and transporting it need lot of preparations and the buyer has to have magnitudes more expensive equipment to use it limiting the markets where to sell it.

Im not advocating for fossil fuels here. Im just stating why its more convinient for big oil to sell easily transportable oil barrels that can be packed in to basically free steel sheets or plastics and are easy to redirect towards whom ever pays the best.

How do you propose you make those power cables from lets say USA to Australia? And if suddenly some other country wants to make a better deal for that energy you cant just redirect those cables to lets say Italy.

Or with batteries. What happens to those expensive batteries containing rare-earthminerals after whom ever has used them? Do you just let them have those or do you buy them back and transport them empty or what?

Im not advocating for fossil fuels here. Im just stating why its more convinient for big oil to sell easily transportable oil barrels that can be packed in to basically free steel sheets or plastics and are easy to redirect towards whom ever pays the best.

Also you can transport and sell a barrel of oil to anywhere on the planet, but you cant bottle wind or solar energy and transport it outside of your powergrid.

I love hating epic just as much as anybody else, but those exclusivity deals are not necessary just bribing the devs.

The first Hades game would have been much smaller in scope and features, without epic funding them and helping them implementing something like EOS, the game would be definedly worse than it is.

Remedy has also stated they could not make Alan Wake 2 without Epics funding. People often say the Epic exclusivity ruined its salea, but realistically without it there would not be a game.

But even so, i think them suing Steam is a asshole move.

So its a glorified a procedural generator that does not save anything it makes?

What the fuck. Its like saying game devs are being replaced because people see dreams when they sleep.

They would be capable of imitating a counter for some timeframe but to actually keep track of it over a long gaming session?

The article was little light on the details, but if the whole game is run on ai thats what is going to happen. But if AI is creating real code and the game it creates has real files that are saved on the computer, things like point counters are not anymore tied by the limits of AI’s memory.

But i just dont see how AI in its current state could make large cohesive projects.

Also there is no such thing as artificial intellect. AI is just nice marketing word for something that tries to mimic what real AI would be.

That would be intresting to watch.

Well there is always the Bannister effect, where when somebody breaks some arbitary record previously tought as unbeatable, multiple people start to beat soon.

Also i want to point out that before the 1991 long jump record was made in 1968. So it took 23 years for the record break that time and for those 23 years people also said we have found the human limit. Until the now standing record destroyed the previous one with 5cm. A huge increment.

Honestly, i think most sim drivers could not physically handle driving a real F1 car. And by most i mean like 99% of them.

I mean accelerating a formula can hit you with force of 4g and in corners it can be even more than that.

There has been discussions about possibility of creating joint nuclear deterrent between nordic countries.

So far its only discussion, but one could hope some day world will kneel before the new Odin and Väinämöinen-class weapons of mass destruction.

Yes. Making and running AC’s contribute straight in to carbon emissions, so its a feedback loop.

Has there still been real concensus with the serious science people? Last time i read about this, there were two models that are most likelly going to happen, another was slow and another was fast, but nobody could really say which one is going to happen and both models were seen equally realistic. But everybody agrees that both predictions are bad for everybody.

In any case, way we should act like the faster one is the one we are going to get.

Im the guy who calls morons a moron and maybe if there were more guys like me, then last autum some poor paramedic would not had to scrape some kids remains from the concrete while their partner were trying to calm down two traumatised teenagers.

Before the social media, and smart phones every moronic thing that every moronic adolescent did, had no way to spread instantly to thousands other teenagers screens.

I dont wish anybody to die, but bullshit like this is just high production value tik tok trend.

Normalizing and idolising stunts like this encourages morons to try it them self and they end up with broken neck.

Just last autum three kids climbed in to radio mast, because they were doing some stupid challenge video. One of them ended up taking the express elevator to ground. Yay, sad parents without a kid and two traumatised friends, because of silly content.

I would love to just put it under natural selection, but its clear that they did what they did because of social media and because they had seen similiar content done by somebody else.

So yeah. I see stunts like this as harmfull.

Was it any good game? It has been sitting in my library for ever, but i heard its kind of meh, so i have been putting it of.

Morality systems are easy to break anyway.

I would say its more that morality systems are hard to implement.

If you make simple system where you loose karma from stealing and gain karma from donating money for orphans player can exploit that system easy. You would need to figure some other system. One could be system where after stealing or donating a certain amount you get a status that permanently raises/lowers your karma. But it really cant be permanent either because it takes away from player agency. How would you turn those things to a points. I mean stealing last coin from beggar cant be same that stealing a coin from a millionare. Also this kind of karma system makes so the quests in the game are black and white. You cant make a quest where dooming 12 orphans to die saves thousands from a plague.

How to implement the karma? Everybody magically hating you for low karma is just unrealistic. Should karma effect only some random events and set story points? Sounds fine, but then devs need to implement that system to the storypoints and its not easy to do so without railroading the players. Like Paragon/Renegate in mass effect 2. It made it so everytime the opportunity came to choose from the two, it took away from the real choise and it became just desition to wich stat you want to raise. Also choosing neutral choice was never good option, because in the end game you need to have one or other stat high enough to get trough gated discussions. You could roleplay and choose what ever you feel right, but then some late game options are just locked from you.

I do enjoy discussions like these, but we are getting stuck.

Im talking about the quote you said earlier, and how, while it is a strong quote, its not universal and it cannot be just tossed as is to the other situation. The quote critiques how people enjoying certain benefits are slow to change their opinion and behavior when people they seem less worthy are given chance to get some of those benefits for themself.

And the situation we are talking is how much people are willing to take if there will be a trade war in future. These are two very different situations.

If my friend needs medicine to live and they cant get it because some nation on the other side of the sea wants to subjucate us, it is only going to get me hate that nation harder.

Please answer this question: Would you sacrifice yourself, and everyone you’ve loved, for your principles?

By the way this is called a yes set. Its when you are asking questions where only reasonable answer for the other side is to agree with you or pick a response you have already decited. Ideally this leaves you in the position where you can keep building on that and getting other person agreeing with you turns arguments into discussions, even if it is scripted. Few of these and im gonna buy a car from you.

You want a safe car for your family, right? Is it important to you, that your car is dependable? What matters to you more, the mileage or how it drives?

This sedan was just waiting for you to come in!