Anonymous asked:
mutant-aesthetic answered:
Eh, New Vegas is far more divorced from progressive orthodoxy than Fallout 3 or 4. You can tell that they put a lot of effort into making House and Yes Man as close to morally equal to the NCR (the clear prog favorite) as possible. All the prog bias is entirely unintentional, and the game goes out of its way to not preach to you, except all the times it tells you that it’s important to look at a problem from multiple angles and consider different perspectives.
The House ALWAYS Wins, Anon.
I’ve never actually really played New Vegas
I typically quit half an hour after goodsprings or so
got any recs? build wise and mod wise
I like grenades, small arms, speech, medicine and survival and want a vanilla+ playthrough
I recall a mod bundle similar to FO3 Wanderer’s Edition, but I can’t recall the name. IIRC, it makes guns feel like they actually work, by increasing the damage for all of them, including the ones shot at you.
Actually, I did enjoy FO4 and especially enjoyed FO3. This whole business about how they’re terrible and New Vegas is godlike is just a meme. NV is good, sure, but this stuff is just performative hatred.
Conservatives have so much fucking nerve talking about how “ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS ARE OUT OF CONTROL” when absolutely no-one feels inconvenienced by them or has ever even encountered them in their personal lives unless they’re the CEO’s of a megaconglomerate bitter that they couldn’t rip up a national park and buy like their fifth house boat
Yeah, it’s literally the Kochs saying “It’s so UNFAIR that when the oil pipelines we own but don’t maintain bust and flood a town with toxic sludge, that WE have to pay to fix it.” and “An employee we forced to clean chemical storage tanks without the proper gear for 15 years developed cancer, and they’re allowed to sue us over it? TYRANNY!!”
How is it never occurred to me to put it like this before?
this honestly comes off as pretty silly and out-of-touch, because there are of course plenty of people who get laid off in industries that are subject to environmental regulations, and while it’s certainly possible to make an empirical case that, say, coal regulations have little to do with the decline of coal jobs, it’s at least plausible that there is some effect.
of course the solution to this is that you need a full employment economy so that losing any particular job doesn’t mean losing a job, period, but until you do so (and obviously there are general capitalist interests against having a genuinely full employment economy outside of wartime) there will be entirely understandable resistance among certain fractions of labor against things (environmental regulations, immigration, labor-saving machinery) that are extremely good in themselves
I would argue against immigration being a general good in itself, but…
Wage subsidies with low minimum wage would get us pretty close to full employment without harming workers (in terms of net income) or crashing the economy (it has support from economists).
Admittedly I’m kind of a broken record, here, but it seems like something that could actually happen without a revolution and without potentially ruining everything.
@rustingbridges
Look, I don’t need milk delivered straight from the cow to me every morning, but if you could get it from the cow to me in less than two weeks I’d take it
“Cow Trucks” Hottest New Craze in Fab Food
Popularity Soars in Hip San Francisco Neighborhoods
by Cauhip Sterman - June 17, 2024
The days of the antiquated Texmex food truck will soon be behind us, ushered out by the new startup Uddare. The venture, which has backing from Google, Microsoft, and various Bay Area venture capitalists, was started by young Nigerian immigrant Oluwa Ishan with only a single cow and a rusted out Ford 150, but has quickly amassed a fleet of 17 vehicles which are dispatched via app to the most popular neighborhoods in the city…
Let me be clear: this was an arbitrary decision. It was different than what I’d talked talked with our senior team about yesterday. I woke up this morning in a bad mood and decided to kick them off the Internet. I called our legal team and told them what we were going to do. I called our Trust & Safety team and had them stop the service. It was a decision I could make because I’m the CEO of a major Internet infrastructure company.
Having made that decision we now need to talk about why it is so dangerous. I’ll be posting something on our blog later today. Literally, I woke up in a bad mood and decided someone shouldn’t be allowed on the Internet. No one should have that power.
fascinating
Wow this is a breath of fresh air
This guy has managed to combine “we need to think ASAP about the kind of precedent we’re setting with decisions like this” and “but for the moment, let’s fuck over Nazis,” two sentiments that are seem like no-brainers but which you somehow don’t expect anyone with Newsworthy Opinions to be able to hold in their mind simultaneously without exploding
“The Daily Stormer site was bragging on their bulletin boards about how Cloudflare was one of them and that is the opposite of everything we believe. That was the tipping point for me.”
That actually seems like a reasonable boundary there. Claiming endorsement is not quite the same thing as just being hosted.
I find it increasingly difficult to justify my own continued existence, really.
There are so many ~~inspirational~~ posts floating around and I’m reading through them thinking “well, that doesn’t apply either, actually”.
Somebody’s not a CEO but they help people save money on airplane tickets, and I am not even useful for that.
“but pets”.
I have a bird.
1) Someone else can take care of him. My mother, for example.
2) Or he’ll starve to death. So? Logically speaking, there are probably millions of budgies. They’re not going extinct or anything. It’d be awful, but I’m one of the sole people in the world who thinks he has any value, so it’s basically a net gain.
“but your blog”
Now you’re just lying.
Well, technically, unfollowing you is as easy as clicking a button, so surely the people saying they like your blog are telling the truth about that, since otherwise who are they signalling to and why didn’t they just unfollow? If you mean it isn’t enough in the grand scheme of things then I suppose I can’t argue that, though I am left to wonder if there isn’t some high-risk activity you could take that you could use to push yourself into what you consider the positive, though perhaps you don’t have enough energy for that.
learn-tilde-ath asked:
This seems reasonable to me on first reading.
My late night tired concern is that the census might not update the house seats fast enough to account for changes in policy or something.
It could act as a pressure against the politicians to be Tough On Crime, or at least for them to use whatever means they can to try to strip their opposition from voting. On the other hand, I’m not sure I want certain convicted criminals voting until they are, at least, out of prison again.
I may return to this later.
The reason the conservatives do not support a gun registry, which would otherwise be an entirely sane idea, is that it’s the first step in “round up all the guns.”
There is no “round up all the guns” without first knowing their locations. Going house to house doing a deep search is prohibitively expensive.
They’ll just hide them. There are so many guns in this country, the round-up won’t even get half of them.
Any event dramatic enough to make the current crop of conservatives agree to round up all the guns isn’t going to be small, either, and most of them would involve said conservatives not wanting to give up their guns.
Mass shootings? Mass shootings by Muslims? Not enough. The response has been to want guns even more in order to shoot back.
You’d need something bordering on an ethnic armed insurrection, at which point many of them would want guns to fight against the ethnic armed insurrection.
It’s true that this hasn’t always been the case in the past, that previous gun control laws were deliberately racist.
However, the clock ticks Democrat, Republican, Democrat, Republican. Do the GOPpers trust that the following Democratic President will have their best interests in mind once the guns are gone? I’m guessing no.
So the kind of event we’re talking about, the one that convinces the current conservatives in this country to yield their firearms (and not bury them in boxes in their back yards) is likely one where Leftists start talking about how they need guns…
Trump’s election made a lot of leftists start talking about how they need guns, although I suspect that group of leftists wasn’t the same group that strongly cared about gun control previously.
Grotesque fantasies about how leftist radicals could “turn gun-ism upon itself” are definitely a thing that exists.
Some forms of the unpleasant “urban containment doctrine” would benefit from some kinds of “gun control” though the idea would be to deny guns from enemies.
So….it’s claimed that it’s really really easy to get a gun from a shady source, that laws against guns wouldn’t matter.
Why then don’t those people just deny they have guns an go buy from those so easy to get criminal access places, if gun control did get passed? That’s exactly the fantasy they have in their “I need my gun against the gubmint” rhetoric.
Well it’s claimed that it isn’t that difficult to buy a black market gun in Europe, but then I’m not the black market type and neither are most of them. But where this falls apart from their perspective should be obvious - why go buy a gun on the black market and depend on the black market when you can just not have gun control? They don’t have criminal contacts, they don’t want criminal contacts, and all those guns have to come from somewhere anyway so what benefit do they get out of it?
And what’s more, the kinds of people that bring up gun control after every mass shooting insist that the number of deaths from terrorist attacks is too small to justify stricter limits on immigration, even though mass shootings, the kind that make the news, are also fairly rare on a per-capita basis, and so it makes sense from their perspective to guess another motive is at work.
SAN FRANCISCO—In an effort to reduce the number of unprovoked hostile communications on the social media platform, Twitter announced Monday that it had added a red X-mark feature verifying users who are in fact perfectly okay to harass. “This new verification system offers users a simple, efficient way to determine which accounts belong to total pieces of shit whom you should have no qualms about tormenting to your heart’s desire,” said spokesperson Elizabeth James, adding that the small red symbol signifies that Twitter has officially confirmed the identity of a loathsome person who deserves the worst abuse imaginable and who will deliberately have their Mute, Block, and Report options disabled. “When a user sees this symbol, they know they’re dealing with a real asshole who has richly earned whatever mistreatment they receive, including profanity, body-shaming, leaking of personal information, and relentless goading to commit suicide. It’s really just a helpful way of saying to our users, ‘This fuck has it coming, so do your worst with a clear conscience and without fear of having your account suspended.’” At press time, Twitter reassuredly clarified that the red X was just a suggestion and that all users could still be bullied with as little recourse as they are now.
