To try to answer, succinctly (which I’m bad at): looking backward is easier than looking forward. What I mean by that is since you didn’t get into the series until 3, it makes sense that you wouldn’t have a problem with 3 and 4, since it’s harder to see what the series could have been…as pretentious as that sounds.

Where much of the hate comes from (and I think a lot of it is overblown - I’m not trying to justify the behavior of the maniacs out there) is that the overarching progression of the series feels reset. Fallout 1 -> Fallout 2 showed a progression in a *post-*post-apocalyptic world, with society advancing again, to some degree. Shady Sands grew between 1 and 2, and was the foundation of the NCR.

So Fallout 3 at the time was IMHO a disappointment because the setting felt more generic, and like they were just playing the greatest hits from 1 and 2. I get the arguments that the setting in-universe was hit harder, but it still felt weird that it was post-apocalpytic instead of post-post-apocalyptic.

One reason (as always, IMHO) that New Vegas was so popular is that it continued to build on 1 and 2. We saw the NCR had continued to grow, other factions rise in importance, and generally felt less like the bombs had dropped the year prior. It’s what a lot of folks hoped Fallout 3 would be, in that sense. That’s my own biased view though, so take it with a grain of salt - there’s folks who want more humor, only isometric, more complex and branching storylines, etc.

Plenty of folks do worry about the possibility of being sued though, so getting rid of a chilling effect is good. Not everyone wants to even deal with the legal struggle or anxiety that would come with that, so it’s good. It gives workers more rights, which is good.

I think I’m confused though about your second paragraph: do you mean that companies only enforce these things on big names, who have money to defend themselves anyway? If so, seems like there’d definitely be a chilling effect for anyone making less, unless they’re willing to take a chance.

Half-Life: Alyx is mostly what I hoped we’d get from HL3, inasmuch as it hits your points a & b for sure, and IMHO c (though I know that’s not agreed on by everyone). It had great action and expository setpieces (avoiding spoilers), and the (albeit relatively simple) puzzles definitely added something to Half-Life that really worked for me.

Unfortunately it didn’t solve all VR issues (melee being an obvious one), and not least of which the cost. I played it on a cheap (~$100), janky old WMR headset, but not everyone can do that without vomiting, so a great PC and good headset are a hefty price, which is probably the biggest hurdle for a full-scale 3 in VR. Especially considering there just aren’t many other games worth making that investment in, IMHO. I played the hell out of Alyx, a little of a few other games…but Alyx was the pinnacle of what VR could do for me.

This book speaks to it better than I can: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/david-graeber-bullshit-jobs/

Specifically take a look at

Chapter 3: Why Do Those in Bullshit Jobs Regularly Report Themselves Unhappy? (On Spiritual Violence, Part 1)

Alyx was incredible though! Way more than a tech demo (though I get the argument that it was a test to see if folks would pick up a VR Half-life 3). I played it on a cheap, used WMR headset and an old PC that could barely keep up, and it still stays in my top five videogaming experiences.

It’s a great example to bring up though, because I’d bet it wouldn’t have been made if the studio was only chasing money instead of trying to innovate.

If your eyeballs are missing, I can make an assumption that your vision isn’t great just by looking at you. That’s not a moral judgement.

Doesn’t mean blood tests are useless, and in fact it means we have some idea where to start investigating a potential health problem.

Yes, I agree that there’s bias against folks who are overweight, and also that there’s a range of risk associated with being overweight. It’s pretty clear, however, that obesity is a health concern that we should take seriously. If someone smokes five pack of cigs a day, I’m going to make an assumption about their lung health. There’s always outliers that live to 100 smoking and not doing exercise, but it would be a shit doctor if they didn’t tell folks not to follow their example.

We saw the uniforms go mostly black in DS9, so I think it is meant to show how the Federation isn’t totally recovered from the Dominion war…I wish they had pushed than angle harder re: the struggle to help the Romulans, the Synths, etc. At least by Lower Decks they’re back to the more colorful uniforms!

I must be ancient here, because nobody has claimed this is like September 1993 all over again…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September

You’re entitled to feel the way you do too, but it doesn’t change what I’ve seen in my years, either.

I think I’m being perfectly level headed, I’m just being a little snarky. At least equally snarky to your comment.

I just wanted to point out that nuance is possible with just a few additional words, but only if we choose to use nuance.

Well it’s a good thing you did the work and spoke with every Jewish person in north America to be able to paint with such a broad brush. I guess all the people I’ve spoken with we’re lying about their ethnicity.

In seriousness though, simply adding “many” or “a plurality of” is enough to add nuance to the discussion. Starting with the blanket “the Jews” isn’t a good look.

To add to this: if the opposition party consistently shows up to vote, the dominant party gets nervous, and has to focus on the chance of losing. Not showing up means they’ve truly won.

It also shows the opposition party that they can and should invest the time in supporting that area, because there’s people who haven’t given up yet.

Also, the president isn’t the only person on the ballot, and small races are where more radical third parties actually have a shot!

I had read your initial comment as insinuating the previous commenter was supporting hamas, and when someone directly challenged you on it, you didn’t reject that accusation.

So if you just wanted to point out the irony, consider my comment as much a non sequitor as your comment on its irony, which is - I suppose - at least irony-adjacent in itself.

Do you get mad at geologists for explaining why volcanoes erupt and kill people?

There’s a difference in understanding and supporting, or considering something morally correct.

As another example: I understand why some folks get sucked into gangs. If someone grows up in a crumbling school system, falls through the holes in whatever is left of a social safety net, has no proper familial support, and sees nothing but violence and economic despair day-to-day, joining a gang suddenly becomes a viable path to prosperity. Exceedingly dangerous, but this hypothetical teen can look around and see they’re likely to have a shit future regardless, so why not take that chance, right?

So this isn’t me saying that I support gang violence, but I can understand why it happens. Which is why my politics are what they are: we don’t need to just beat the shit out of gang members in the streets, but give folks support so they don’t feel like joining a gang is the only way to survive.

The other poster is (I think) making a similar kind of argument. What the fuck else is some kid in that situation going to grow up to be? Some folks will make it out alright, sure: but on the whole it’s a recipe for despair, which often leads to horrific acts. It doesn’t make the acts right, but we can understand a little more about the why.

Reminds me of a great pair of line from a Warren Zevon song: “I can saw a woman in two, but you won’t want to look in the box when I’m through.”

It’s not disingenuous. Jewish people literally just weren’t there until very recently. You’re talking like 1000+ years ago.

This is the central question everyone can’t agree on, right? Which group that conquered the region and eradicated their enemies has the “rights” to the land? I’m seriously ignorant on the subject, and more than happy to delete this comment if it’s not really adding to anything, but we’re calibrating our standards of who has the rights to a region based on what the latest Empire said, be it Ottomans or Romans or however far back we want to go, until we’re talking literally Neolithic folks showing up, right? I’m not religious, so there’s a critical part of this conflict I simply cannot fundamentally understand.

The difference between making claims based on occupation in the late 1800s versus late 800s seems arbitrary, to me. That said, I know that can sound patently ridiculous, since we’re talking generations we can count on one hand versus the same number of Empires controlling the land: so this is where I throw my hands up and just cry a little. Solidarity to everyone suffering oppression and terrorism, in whatever forms they take.

Good guess, but doesn’t look like it: July is when the Earth is at its furthest point from the sun.

“True enough, there are such things as laughless jokes, what Freud called gallows humor. There are real-life situations so hopeless that no relief is imaginable.

While we were being bombed in Dresden sitting in a cellar with our arms over our heads in case the ceiling fell, one soldier said as though he were a duchess in a mansion on a cold and rainy night, ‘I wonder what the poor people are doing tonight.’ Nobody laughed, but we were still all glad he said it. At least we were still alive! He proved it.”

― Kurt Vonnegut, A Man Without a Country