Primarily0617

I don’t even mean I wouldn’t trust Obsidian. I mean I wouldn’t trust the specific team they had working on New Vegas, which was an absurdly stacked deck that they seemingly haven’t been able to re-create since.

Films you can re-watch twice and have it be just as good the second time are rare. Bethesda wanted a film you could rewatch ten times while simultaneously larping as a cosmic god and trying to break everything you could.

All the new ideas in Starfield fall into one of two categories:

• The technology doesn’t exist to implement it.
• The talent at Bethesda is incredibly ill-suited to implement it.

The Bethesda response to fans saying their main storyline was trash was to make a game where the main storyline is the primary focus and draw of the game? That’s a bold move.

The NG+ stuff is a cool idea, but again, Bethesda just fundamentally lacks the talent to implement it. You can’t hit what they were aiming for with a handful of gimmicks. I wouldn’t even trust the team behind New Vegas, or whoever writes at Larian, to do it justice.

• Fallout 3 releases and it’s good
• Fallout New Vegas releases and it’s great
• Fallout 4 releases and it’s disappointing but it’s okay because it’s just a blip. They had some good new ideas in there, they were just balanced out in the other direction by a lot of bad ones. Bethesda’s track record is still solid, if somewhat tarnished.
• Fallout 76 releases and it’s disappointing but that’s because they’ve never made (and shouldn’t have made) an MMO before. A lot of the coverage is centred around the shoddy launch, which doesn’t really matter for a non-MMO title.

you can e2e encrypt emails though?

every company has shareholders, including larian studios

you can’t set up a company without specifying shareholders

but when is the exact point of “how they were” when 4000 years of erosion has already taken place?

historical conservation isn’t really this cut and dry

sometimes it’s better to restore things, or to do work to prevent them degrading further

if you’re just going to take us back in circles again this discussion is a bit pointless, isn’t it?

if you aren’t refusing to acknowledge they’re ux problems, you’re saying it’s unhelpful to call them what they are, which is obviously nonsense

and again, sane defaults are ux

or i could argue that an issue 90% of people will run into is a higher priority than one 2% of people will run into

or i could argue than the risk of accidentally opening something you didn’t want to is higher than the risk of losing unsaved work

the reason foss sucks when it comes to ux is this attitude of insisting that ux problems are somehow some “other” category of problem, rather than an engineering constraint that needs to be designed around like every other one

case in point, for some reason you’re still refusing to acknowledge that they’re both ux problems. and if you do, your original reply ceases to even make sense.

yet very different

which is why my first words to you were “it is and it isn’t”

binning them into the same category is not helpful

both are caused by people in the foss space not paying enough attention to ux

increased attention to ux could solve both

personally i think categorising all work solely through the lens of severity is unhelpful

Single/double click behavior is a matter of preference.

And defaulting to the preference that most people prefer or are used to is a matter of UX.

Which is why I say they’re both UX decisions.

it is and it isn’t

they’re both bad UX, which FOSS is generally pretty bad at, probably because there’s not as much overlap between people who who are really into FOSS and people who are really into UX

linux-centric communities also tend to be plagued by elitism, which i expect stifles a lot of this kind of thing before proper conversations can take root

why is he waiting on you hand-and-foot if all you’re doing is sipping a coffee?

It takes a certain amount of energy for water to exist as water, a certain amount of energy for oxygen to exist as oxygen, and a certain amount of energy for hydrogen to exist as hydrogen

The amount of energy it takes for water to keep being water is less than the sum total of the energy it takes for oxygen and hydrogen to keep being themselves.

When you burn hydrogen, it combines with oxygen in the air and makes water. But that requires less energy to exist, so where does the excess energy go? It’s released as heat.

To split water back into hydrogen and oxygen, you have to re-add that same amount of energy again.

Hydrogen as a fuel isn’t so much a source of energy as a store of energy. A battery doesn’t make energy. You charge it with energy so that you can retrieve that energy later. Similarly, a big power plant electrolyses a bunch of water and makes a bunch of hydrogen. Later, you can use that hydrogen in your car without having to be connected to the big power plant that made it.

this is all probably largely wrong and you should ignore it chemistry SUCKS

it’s next to the time ghost, to the right of 3 tuesdays ago

The controlled demolition of Israa University makes it pretty obvious that it’s a goal.

I think we can all agree whatever claims you want to make about how it was secretly a training camp don’t really matter, right? If you’re in control of a building enough to go in and plant explosive charges, I think you might be in control of it enough to stop it being used as a training camp.

deef nuts

What’s an alternative that features the presents-giving at the same time of year

Festivus is explicitly non-commercial

gods am i glad microsoft didn’t have to dip into their literal trillion dollar valuation to pay independent artists any money at all to advertise the independent developers they’re so gleeful to take credit for