Eh, apples to oranges.

A 60$ game today is so unlike a 60$ two or three decades ago.

No physical medium. Much larger market and (potential at least) sales volume.

Proliferation of game engines; games don't need to 'reinvent the wheel' each time, or write machine code anymore.

On top of that, there's many other revenue streams. Not that I think this model is 'fair and good', but look at the mobile market, where a sale cost of $0 is king.

Something to be said about 'lower cost incentivizing bad practices' (as the article discusses), and yeah, some games could raise their price. But it's far fron 1-1, as 'sales volume' trumps 'sale price' in importance.

Couldn't disagree more. The stuff I liked about ER feel disconnected from the open world, and I feel likes its sprawling reptative scope detracted enjoyment from it for me.

Hemp seeds are okay. I'm already doing exactly what you suggest, but with flax seeds (since those also have those omega oils). Not sure which is considered 'better'.

I think controller is only 'necessary' for souls games due to them not supporting keyboard and mouse well. I'd prefer to use keyboard for it, but all of the inputs and menu-ing is fucked up.

Tbh, its a testament to how good the games are, that they are enjoyable despite a huge lack of QoL across the board

I fully agree. If you read my first comment, I pretty clearly as much as the new ones are pretty bad (story wise), the two Jaffe worked on are even worse in that regard.

I agree. I'm very much for more research into fusion. I'm still somewhat skeptical of it ever being 'infinite cheap energy'. But even if it never becomes a 'good energy source', the advancement of knowledge is valuable. So its not like I think fusion is a scam overall.

But I think this particular company is.

I got through the tutorial, and into the 'hub world' or w/e it's called, and it just felt very 'MMO' to me. Which, on top of the monetization already putting a bad taste in my mouth, I just refunded there. I hate games that shove 'multiplayer stuff' into single player games. Like, I played through Elden Ring in forced offline: I don't want to interact with others, even through little stuff like bloodstains.

BG3 was basically unplayable for us for about 2 weeks post 1.0

But also, we really wanted to only play co-op, and the bugs were mostly online related, which is arguably more forgivable.

But still, hard crashing or freezing every 15 minutes for one of the three of us sucked, and looking at support forums, wasn't uncommon either.

You are, of course, correct.

But even so, costs are costs. It doesn't matter if you've achieved communism, and are in a moneyless, stateless existance, you need labor and materials to build nuclear, and labor and materials to maintain it (along with other infrastructure).

And, I'm not anti-nuclear; it does make sense to use sometimes, in some amounts. Its just very very costly for what it provides.

But frankly, even only accounting for current tech, wide spread nuclear just doesn't make that much sense compared to renewables + storage and large grids interconnects.

You want the one and only environmental problem in our food industry, that is it.

I'm genuinely sorry if that's the takeaway from my message, as that was not my intent. That was, actually, the vibe I've gotten from you; that the primary issue in food production is locality. I think there are dozens and dozens of issues in our global food supply chain, and maybe a third of them are tied to meat production.

But I don't think all of humanity must give up meat or anything. My main opinion is that meat is over-represented in our diets, especially American diets, and that huge demand for meat has economically incentivized meat production in areas and ways that aren't sustainable. But I do think meat can be sustainable. The primary issue isn't meat existing, its meat being over produced.

Much of what you say in your reply is correct, at least in part, so your not wrong that meat could be produced more sustainably. But, also as you say, it mostly isn't. So, I choose to not eat meat. But I'm not asking you to not, but rather saying that your proposal, of eating exclusively local, isn't practical for 90% of humans.

But yeah, you're right, "it’s a sad fact that many states export so much local food, meat, only to import crops from the other side of the country." That's 100% correct, and a problem.

But your soy point isn't really correct. https://ourworldindata.org/soy. While yes, most of animal feeds is soy meal, a byproduct of soy oil production, if you compare the amount of soybean directly consumed by us, its slightly less that then 7% whole soybeans fed directly to animals. So, animals are eating more straight whole soybeans than humans are eating tofu, tempeh, soymilk, etc.

And, on top of that, Soy meal is human edible. Yes, it often does require further refining, but it already is used to make things like Textured Vegetable Protein and Soymilk, since neither need the oil. And, we lose somewhere between 2-5x the energy using that soymeal to feed chickens, and somewhere between 6-25x that energy feeding it to cows.

And to reiterate, I'm not saying to burn down all animal agriculture and make everyone everywhere vegan. I'm saying that I agree with a lot of what you say, about reworking global logistics and agriculture to make all farming more local and more sustainable. And, as a consequence of that, meat production will have to drop. Factory farming is horrible on so many fronts, but it is efficient at pumping out loads of meat. To dismantle that, like you're proposing, will result in lower global meat production, even if some localities might actually see a rise. Small scale operations are less efficient in terms of total meat production, even if they're more efficient by most other metrics (all those pesky 'market externalities').

The problem with eating locally, is that it isn't a viable way to feed humanity. Like, yeah, the more local the better, you aren't wrong. We all should buy local foods as far as is possible. But the nature of humans living in cities, and many cities being near good trade areas rather than good agriculture areas, means that it just isn't viable.

If everyone was like you, and bought local near-exclusively, the price of food in most cities and many regions would skyrocket, and unless people stopped, many would starve.

Not to say its a binary; we do 'overship' foods, and certainly could (and should!) eat more local foods.

Add to that, that demand for meat (especially beef) means that a lot of animal agriculture requires the shipping of plant feed for that meat; see how the majority of soybean farming (77%) is for animal feed. And, similar to the point above, 'grass fed' beef just isn't possible to do while meeting demand. If we want local grass fed animals, a lot of people are going to have to give up meat, or dramatically cut down on meat consumption.