jjjalljs

Meta should be broken up and its leadership barred from working in tech (or politics)

Some games ask the players to define the stakes and goals when a conflict starts. This can help keep players on track.

Like, the players are on a journey through the mountains, and as they pass through a tunnel they encounter a giant spider. The default mode is "fight the spider to the death!". But if you ask the players again "what is your goal here?" they might remember it's "get through the mountains", not "kill everything we meet." Now they might focus on how to get past it safely.

If the DM rewards players for advancing their goals instead of just murder, that can also encourage non-murder behavior.

Conservatives should be listened to on nothing. They have zero credibility. A toddler would make better policy decisions

I think that's the "two Santa" strategy https://www.milwaukeeindependent.com/thom-hartmann/two-santas-strategy-gop-used-economic-scam-manipulate-americans-40-years/

they're scum that should not be allowed to hold office.

If they were capable of rising above their quagmire of fear and hate, they probably wouldn't be conservatives. It's not about facts or consistency. It's about feelings. Mostly fear of the out-group.

I don't think they thought about it very much. It's like that spongebob meme where patrick has the wallet. Or the Friends one that I don't know the name of the template. You could go point by point building up a case for why there should be government regulations, but as soon as you say like "regulation" they go "Nope bad"

Though some people really do believe they as a rugged individual will be able to research and test all of their food without an FDA or whatever. If they buy bread that has sawdust in it, they'll be able to tell, and somehow get a refund, or buy some other bread that doesn't have sawdust. That seems like a lot of work and optimism compared to regulations and inspections by qualified professionals earlier in the process.

action-adventure game

I feel like taking an extremely turn based game and making it "action adventure" is a weird choice. BG3 was a mega smash hit and turn based. If you want to funnel more players into your tabletop game, you probably want the video game to be kind of sort of like the tabletop. I have doubts about this.

The point of the anecdote was that when people get really mad, they don't think rationally. If I had a gun, it would have been really easy in that moment to pull it out and use it. That's too easy.

(Though yes, I did briefly consider picking up his dog's shit with a plastic bag of my own, and hitting him in the face with it, but by then I had cooled down enough to realize I didn't want to potentially ruin my life by assaulting a guy on the street.)

Sure, maybe that would help, too. But like any system built by humans you're going to need consistent, rigorous, investments in education or in a few generations you'll have idiots tearing down chesterton's fence. "I don't see why monopolies are so bad" -> "oh no why is everything so expensive and dangerous??"

Also more public housing. Everyone needs somewhere to live and letting a handful of people siphon wealth out of that isn't working out for us.

I feel like using stock as collateral to get a loan should count as income or something that gets taxed. It's not because you technically haven't realized the gain, but you kind of have in practice.

People over estimate how cool and collected they are.

The other day some asshole was letting his dog shit on the sidewalk and not picking it up. I saw. He saw me see. We made eye contact. He called me a coward and walked away.

In that moment I was emotionally ready to murder him. Just put his smug ass on the ground with his dog shit. Luckily, I don't carry a gun so I just yelled at him. But if I had a gun on me? No way the scene would have gone better.