I’m lucky enough to work for an organization which furnishes me with up to 4 hours of paid leave to vote. Plus, my polling place is on the road home, and I’ve never waited longer than a couple of minutes to vote. Finally, doing it in person feels more impactful, even if that’s just a perception thing.
Jury’s out on this one, but I’m told he’s got top men working on it. 
Any playersof CoC willing to chime in on the key differences which push that game into a more investigative space than your typical DnD style dungeon crawl adventure? I mean, I assume there are things like a sanity mechanic, as well as an emphasis on player fragility, but I’m curious if there are other systems at play which separate the two RPGs even further.
I think you’ve got an admirably optimistic outlook. I hope you’re correct. However, I am afraid that you may be underestimating human greed and selfishness. Those aren’t unique traits to any generation. Maybe it’s human nature, maybe it’s learned through existence in a capitalistic / hierarchically organized society. In any case, I am not confident that youth alone will prevent people from seeing the kind of country and world that was left to them, as you put it, and not desire to possess as much of the remnants as possible in an outburst of self-interest.
For every person that sees the ice caps melting and wants to fix it somehow, I’m afraid there’s almost certainly at least one other person who thinks, “Hell yeah, new oceanfront property just dropped, how can I own/sell it?”
Not that it really matters, but trying to learn about (Christian) God by reading the Old Testament is like trying to perform maintenance on your 2024 vehicle using a manual from the 2000 version of that car… Like, yeah, that was relevant once, and there’s some overlap, but the situation has evolved since then. It’s called the Old Testament because it is based on something outdated (again, from a generically Christian perspective). The Old Covenant (which is what the Old Testament is testifying to) was between God and the Jews, and was based around compliance with the law. That’s why the OT is so full of rules and punishments.
Then, Jesus arrives on the scene and changed the game. His birth, betrayal, and death, represent a new contract between God and humanity (not just the Jews) wherein mankind is saved by God’s grace alone. In fact, God has done a 180 on the whole obedience to the law thing. Turns out, God loves sinners, and prostitutes, and tax collectors, and prodigal sons, and all sorts of ne’er-do-wells that the God of the Old Testament would have reviled. From the death of Jesus forward (and maybe retroactively too, I don’t know dogma all that well), the only thing necessary for your salvation is God’s grace, and that is given to all, as long as you accept God into your heart or something like that. Basically, God is Darth Vader, and he has altered the deal, pray he does not alter it further.
Of course, as with anything A) religious and B) 2000+ years old, there’s a lot of disagreement on like every aspect of the above. But, I think I’ve got the gist of it correct from a generic, if Catholicism influenced, perspective. It’s been a long time since I had to sit through a theology lecture.
With all that being said though, I imagine that the reason the OT has stuck around in Christianity is that it’s characterization of God as vindictive and capricious and obsessed with toeing the line is a very useful tool for keeping the plebs compliant. They get to have their cake and eat it too, as it were. “God loves you unconditionally sweetie, remember that, but also if you have sex before marriage you are DAMNED to HELL for ETERNITY!”
A game which I have started numerous times, and then bounced off of due to the archaic control interface. One of these days I’m going to have to knuckle under and learn how to interact with it, as the concept is cool as hell, and I’m sure the controls become intuitive with practice.
I see this response with some degree of frequency here on Lemmy (and Reddit before) when a movie/game bombs, or a show is cancelled, and I have to wonder how valid it is. Like, I would suspect that the population that uses Lemmy regularly and the population that takes steps to remove corporate advertising from their lives form an essentially circular Venn diagram.
At a certain point, easy though it is to blame marketers for not getting the word out, folks need to acknowledge the fact that, when advertisers come knocking at their door, they’re turning off the porch light and closing the blinds.
Which is not to imply that people have anything approaching an obligation to open themselves up to advertising. I’m just saying that blaming a lack of ads while running an ad blocker seems disingenuous.
For the record, OP, not an attack on you or anything, just voicing some thoughts that have been percolating since reading about a couple high profile flops and cancellations this summer.
Perhaps. But expanding ones borders through conquest also seems medieval, and guided missiles are poor tools for holding territory, so the classics still have a role to play.
I forget where exactly I heard this, but I recall Tommy Lee Jones remarking to Carrey that he “cannot sanction your buffoonery”, so I know at least one person who was not a fan. Which, is very funny considering Tommy Lee Jones, but is also a little bit of a head scratcher, since it was not as though he went for a super subtle Two-Face performance.
More a piece “inspired by” than a direct translation, but, if you have any affinity for classic metal music, Savatage has you covered.
Ooooo, if I sit and think about this one, I’ll be completely unable to settle on a single pick, so I’m just going with my knee jerk reaction. Return of the Living Dead perfectly hits the intersection of comedy and horror that I like out of my zombie media.
I need to lay off the Mount and Blade. Definitely saw Calradia as I was scrolling past.
Further context, assuming the ruleset governing the OG Baldurs Gate games was true to the tabletop (I know they sort of kludged AD&D and aspects of 3e together). As the above said, a dual classed human “retires” their original class, and then begins to advance in their new class, essentially starting over from level 1, with only the hit dice and HP of their original class rolled over (you cannot access any of the class abilities you learned while advancing your original class). However, once your new class level is superior to your original class level, you can now access both skill sets.
It’s a very strange system, and I am curious what the fluff reasons surrounding it are, if anyone has any insight into that edition.
100%. I know that the jury is out, academically speaking, on the actual effectiveness of the bombs, but it makes intuitive sense to me that they at least contributed to the Japanese decision to surrender unconditionally.
In fact, up until the bombs were dropped, Japan was working with the Soviet Union to act as mediators in peace talks, so Japan could get a better deal. Of course, while the USSR entertained the diplomatic overtures from Japan, they were actually planning on declaring war, as they had promised at Yalta. But, I think it still contributes to my point that a civilian population that has been targeted by a besieging force must believe their only options are unconditional surrender or utter destruction (which, incidentally, is exactly the verbiage the US presented Japan in the Potsdam Declaration 10 days before the first bomb was dropped). If there is a plausible third option available (or believed to be available), then that’s what will be pursued.
No, it was not my intention to suggest that. I’m sure the Germans threw everything they could afford into the Battle of Britain.
Though, I am most definitely not an expert in the field and should be treated as I am, a dude on the internet lol.
However, even Germany in early WW2 (arguably at the height of their power) was unable to throw enough explosives into London to make that switch flip in the civilian population from “we shall fight them on the beaches” to “okay, in light of recent events, we are reevaluating our ‘Never Surrender’ policy…”.
In fact, I might even suggest that the scale of bombing necessary to make it a viable tactic was impossible at that time, as the nuclear bomb hadn’t yet been invented. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than me can fact check this assertion, but I think the only time intentionally targeting civilians has successfully cowed a belligerent was when the US nuked Japan. And even then, it took two.
Also, to add to the other poster’s point, in a medieval siege, the defenders have every reason to believe the attackers will happily let every man, woman, and child behind the walls die gruesome deaths to starvatiom or disease. That’s why, when it came down to the wire, cities would submit.
In modern times, cultivating a believable military posture of, “Surrender, or we will personally execute every last motherfucking one of you” is politically dicey. Look at the news stories coming out of Gaza about supplies running low thanks to Israeli interference. Right, wrong , or indifferent, the international community (as well as your domestic community, if those that disagree with these sorts of tactics are allowed to make their voices heard) tends to look down their noses at targeting noncombatants populations. So, due to these complications (which were largely absent or less impactful from warfare in the time of Genghis Khan) wholesale slaughter of civilian life isn’t really openly used. In fact, guidelines like “proportionality” are invented which dictate the level of response you can give certain provocations and what not.
So, if you’re a modern day commander being tasked with taking an urban center, the closest way to approximate a medieval siege would be to absolutely carpet bomb everything. Make it known that you will happily let every single person in Moscow die, if not send them to the afterlife yourself. While you’re bombing the suburbs, you’ll also need to encirce the whole city to prevent supplies from being delivered, since you can’t guarantee every bomb will hit it’s target and need starvation to provide additional assurance to the population that, if they maintain their current course, they are doomed.
Unfortunately, the world isn’t going to allow that, and you know it, so you commit to the level of bombing deemed acceptable by the world at large. At best, you wind up in a situation like London during the Blitz. Your bombing runs are effective, in that they disrupt the daily life of citizenry, and cause some infrastructure damage and loss of life. However, you’re never going to be allowed to scale up to the point where your victims feel they have no way out but to submit. There’s enough plausible deniability that, even when a bomb hits close to home (literally or figuratively), the victim is more pissed at the bomber than their government.
I have it on good authority that that isn’t an issue in this instance. They’ve towed the boat outside of the environment.
By all means, I’d expect him to try, however, this is a constitutional amendment. The Supreme Court can’t take back an amendment the way they can strike down laws (I.e. by ruling it unconstitutional for whatever reason), because it IS constitutional by definition.
Thankfully, the Constitution is also very specific about what it takes to amend it further. 2/3 of both chambers of Congress, or 2/3 of state legislatures must vote to just propose an amendment, and then, to pass the amendment, they need 3/4 of the vote. Because the process is enumerated, there’s no legal ambiguity they can use to shape their ruling the way they want. To remove term limits, you must amend the Constitution. To amend the Constitution, you must meet these (intentionally) high thresholds. If A -> then B.
So, unless Trump is able to woo half of the sitting Democrats, as well as 100% of the Republicans, we’re safe from the system being used to guillotine itself (instead, the system will spend the next 4 years hitting itself in the face with a bat). Now, if Trump wants to seize power outside of the system, that’s a different ball game, and the relative friendliness of judges and Congress is a moot point.