Mnemnosyne

Yeah, people shouldn't be allowed to be involved with things that they don't care about enough to know all that came before. Whether it's a movie, a book, a game, a tv series, it should always be done by people who genuinely care and are fans of it.

The difference is like night and day when everyone cares. The Lord of the Rings is probably one of the best examples. The vast majority of people on that knew the source material well, and that let them work towards the same vision, each contributing in their own way. The things that were changed were never because nobody gave a shit. I don't agree with all of them, but I can't say they did them without consideration.

When everyone cares, that's when something amazing is made.

Well, I think games that have the greatest possibility between them make the best choices. So...

Stellaris. - I want a 4x and grand strategy and this one is a bit of both. Also considering how much it's changed since 1.0, the various versions of it provide a lot of variety in themselves. Also it's got great mod support. Its core systems have also been rebuilt a couple times, so I know it has a good deal of potential and isn't locked too hard into certain mechanics.

Conan Exiles. - This is a really weird choice cause the game isn't amazing in and of itself, or even all that good, and it's pretty buggy, but it's one of the most customizable, mod supported multiplayer games I know of. Maybe there's a better choice and if I had time to research it I'd pick that one. I know there's a multiplayer mod for Skyrim, for example, but I'm not technical enough to know if that has better possibilities than Conan. Hell, maybe Minecraft has potential here? I have never liked it much. It would be absolutely necessary to me that it can be updated to decent (not blocky) graphics though.

Elite: Dangerous. - This is another choice I'd like to research a better option for. The thing is I want a flight/space game, but I don't know enough about the genre, and this is the only one that immediately comes to mind. Its kind of my one mostly unselfish pick cause I haven't played this type of game in a long time.

Baldur's Gate 3. - It's not actually my favorite rpg or even my favorite Baldur's Gate, but Larian designed it with good mod support and tools. Also it can support multiplayer very easily. Like the others on this list, it's here for future adaptability; if we're never getting new games, mods of these 5 have to be as much like new games as possible.

An MMO. - This is the toughest one to answer myself cause I don't know enough about the back end of them. The trick is choosing the one with the most broadly applicable technical side. I want as much possibility in future development as I can get, and I'd really like one that isn't inextricably linked to the target based gameplay we currently know from most of them. If required to pick without research, I would reluctantly choose Guild Wars 2, cause it at least isn't tied to tab targeting, but I have no idea if it's good with my other criteria.

Now, you'll notice I didn't pick any games without multiplayer, and that's cause if these are going to be the only 5 games left until the end of time they should all support multiplayer. No single player only need apply.

Got a pauldron protecting the shoulder, gorget protecting the neck, helmet protecting head and ear. There's no possible harm that might come to you holding the sword that way.

Epstein files are the only thing that's maintained even a tiny bit of traction among his supporters and made some of them...well I'd say think twice, but that implies thinking a first time.

A filtered group that is selected to be favorable toward the representative, not hostile to him.

If they can't even get their filtered group to overwhelmingly support their positions, it seems unlikely that a general sampling of the population would.

To give the current owners the chance to do the right thing, and make a small but reasonable gain from their property.

And to make it more palatable to the general public. It's a lot easier to convince people to go along with it if you're seizing empty unused properties that are only empty and unused because the owner refuses to rent them if they're not making excessive profit.

Problem easily solved. Is a building not being utilized? Seize it and pay the owner fair market value, then have the city administrate it and charge just enough rent to cover expenses of maintenance and improvement and administration.

There are objectively good games. There are not objectively fun games.

Half-Life 2 is objectively good, and if you say it's a bad game you're simply wrong. However if you say it's a game you do not enjoy and isn't fun for you, that's not wrong.

A game can be both good and not enjoyable to you.

Conversely, a game can also be objectively bad and yet fun for some people.

Yeah, I only see two ways off this train at this point.

1- they fail to rig the next election and get voted out so overwhelmingly that they fail to fight it...

2- military coup. If some number of military officials take their paths to the Constitution seriously and decide to act to defend it.

If not one of those, then hopefully the regime doesn't last long and we collapse like the USSR did.

Because after Trump's first term, including the failed coup, when nothing happened to them, the republicans came to a startling realization: no matter what they do there are no consequences, because the democrats refuse to enforce any.

For decades they've worked to be either technically within the law, or carefully over the line in ways that are both deniable and difficult to prosecute. But during Trump's first term, it became apparent they don't need to do that anymore. They can do whatever the fuck they want and no one will impose any consequences. Even if someone stops them in the moment, they just get to try again.

And it's all because democrats are too concerned with decorum and looking polite.

So why can't democrats do the same? Cause you bet your britches the republicans will hold them to account if they start doing whatever they want. Republicans would love that. They would be thrilled to lock up most of the democrats. But given the opportunity and very real justification for doing so, the democrats just...didn't do it to the republicans.

There's a difference between 'a person' and 'every person'. A person can definitely do things better than any chat bot. But not every person can. And depending on the situation, a person who can may not be available.

Even then, there is a place where the AI beats all persons and is better in one way: speed. If the task at hand does not require a better result than what the AI outputs, then the time savings is big, because there are no situations in which any human will work faster.

If those guys, especially Trump, could personally launch with no chain of command or chance for a sanity check in between, I think I really might rather have nothing more than an LLM in charge.