Fez

6 minutes ago, ljkeane said:

I mean I'm pretty sure if a bunch of significant institutional investors wanted to invest in a fund that didn't include companies doing business with/in Israel there would be a lot of financial institutions offering one pretty quickly. It'd be pretty inconvenient but I very much doubt it's impossible.

No, it basically is. Israel is far more integrated into the global economy than South Africa was, and the global economy is far more inter-connected than it had been. Every major company either invests in Israel, sells products to them, accepts investments from Israel, and/or directly employs Israelis (The US chamber of commerce estimates that 2,500 US companies have Israeli employees).

It'd be an enormous effort, potentially impossible, to create fund that definitely excluded all those companies. And, if the fund did exist, it'd certainly entirely be composed of small-cap companies. Small-cap index funds significantly underperform the broader market and this one would do even worse since it'd be leaving out the companies that have become successful enough to participate in multinational operations. And were the endowment to purposefully reduce its market returns to that extent, it'd violate the terms that most endowment gifts have; in other words, donors could break their endowment agreements and clawback their gifts if they wanted.

So, no, this is not a step any university would ever take. Maybe they could be convinced to stop investment in weapons manufacturers (and maybe even in funds that include them), maybe. But that'd be a major scaleback from the student demands.

36 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Aren't they seeking to get Columbia University (and it's considerable endowment) to divest from Israel?  If that's the case, protesting on campus seems like the place to do it. 

Sure. Except that falls into the "impossible" category. The student demand goes beyond stopping direct investment in Israel/Israeli companies (which the University doesn't do anyway— except building a student center in Tel Aviv that the protesters also want cancelled) and is instead that Columbia University not invest in any company that does any business with Israel or even any index fund that includes those companies. Which means they don't want the endowment fund to be invested in the stock market at all; something the university will never do.

1 hour ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

Who knows?  They US doesn't appear to have much influence right now.  It's not illogical to think that cutting of military aid to Israel is a more direct and sensible option.  

But the US government has been supporting Israel for a long time.  Maybe it's illogical to protestors to think that the US would suddenly rein in Israel by providing them with more weapons.  If protestors felt they had better ways of influencing the US government I doubt they'd be out there right now.  

 

Setting aside the merits or concerns about the protests, my main issue is that protesting on campus is basically pointless and just wastes people's time. The student demands are either impossible for the universities for achieve or doable but wouldn't have any impact on Israel. They'd be much more impactful protesting at congresspersons' townhall events and outside their district offices. Or, in the case of the NYC-based students, protesting outside the mayor's office or city council; since the NYC government has much larger economic ties to Israel than any university.

The only thing you achieve protesting on campus is smug self-satisfaction. And potentially intimidate Jewish students.

6 hours ago, Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II said:

Apparently it’s gonna be a new IP unrelated to Divinity. I’m just impressed they’re able to develop 2 huge games at once.

I don't think its 2 huge games. I'm pretty sure it's one huge game (described as being even bigger than BG3) and one smaller game. Sort of like how Rockstar worked on Max Payne 3 and GTA V at the same time.

11 minutes ago, Zorral said:

There has been some chatter about this very thing showing up as of yesterday and today.  But that's all it is so far, speculating how far SS can extend to someone even kept out of prison by a hung jury of a criminal case.

There was an article about this last summer: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/08/04/trump-criminal-cases-prison-secret-service/

And, as of then at least, the consensus was that no one had a plan in place yet to handle it. However, just because there are logistical challenges, doesn't mean it would be impossible for Trump to be incarcerated. He would absolutely never be anywhere near a prison gen pop though.

38 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yeah, they’re going to pass a CR there like they always do that close to an election.  If the House GOP shuts down the government a month away from the election, Speaker or not?  I suppose it’s possible nut that’s all electoral upside for Biden and the Dems, which is why I didn’t mention it.

Right, they will. My point is just that they need a Speaker simply for the actual mechanics of passing a bill. Which might be impossible if they ditch Johnson before then.

2 hours ago, DMC said:

Only if that indebtedness could be of use.  Like I said, the House is pretty much done for the year at this point, so there’s really nothing to gain.  As for the Speaker’s role in certification, that’s something to consider.  But thing is, certification takes place right after the new Congress starts at the beginning of January 2025.  It’s pretty clear Johnson is going to be replaced after the election one way or another anyway.  And it’s quite possible Hakeem Jeffries will be Speaker once we get to certification.

As for the line of succession, I guess, but that’s pretty morbid and extraordinarily unlikely.

They will need to act to avoid another government shutdown on October 1. That's so close to the election that the politics get really screwy and I suspect most Republicans will have no desire for a fight. But they'll need to have a speaker to actually get a bill through and it was never clear (AFAIK) if an acting speaker could do that.

1 hour ago, polishgenius said:

Sweet. The first Steamworld Heist rocked. Steamworld in general is low-key one of the best franchises going. 

 

Hope this does well for them. Steamworld Build was a flop and led to the publisher "putting on hold" a game called Steamworld Headhunter. https://www.gamedeveloper.com/business/thunderful-says-steamworld-build-underperformed-reveals-it-s-looking-to-sell-headup 

5 minutes ago, Liffguard said:

I think the leadership of Israel and its backers should think very very hard about whether they want to live in a world where diplomatic offices are considered valid military targets, especially in situations where two countries aren't formally at war.

They already do:

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

10 hours ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

Israel to the best of my knowledge still has never confirmed they have nukes, even though everyone knows that they do. Governments in general do their best to hide information. Would it shock you if in the morning you read that Australia had them? Or how about Canada? Looking at the list of G20 countries I guess South Africa and Japan would surprise me the most. Mexico too. Everyone else, fuck if I know. 

I wouldn't be surprised if a few close US allies under our nuclear umbrella started looking into the feasibility of developing their own weapons after Trump made a whole lotta statements while President saying the US shouldn't defend our allies. But I doubt any of them actually have any yet, both because a nuclear weapons program takes a long time to spin up and because I think they would announce they have them as soon as they do.

The only country I could at all imagine might have nuclear weapons but keep it secret would be Japan, because it would actually be against their constitution, much of their population would disapprove of it, and it would unnecessarily antagonize China to announce it. But its known that as early as the 1960s there were Japanese government white papers arguing that tactical nukes at least wouldn't be unconstitutional and their PM at the time told LBJ that Japan should have nukes if China does. So maybe they do have something.

Even if they don't right now, they have missiles and literal tons of plutonium and highly enriched uranium already, so they probably could put some together very quickly if they needed to.

Chrono Trigger is a lot of fun, but I'd certainly agree that its been surpassed by a number of games since; and mostly retains it's place on a lot of lists simply from how great it was comparatively at the time.

There are some '90s RPGs that have better writing than most games even today (e.g., Planescape Torment) but are often janky in the actual gameplay. The only '90s RPG that I think completely stands the test of time is Final Fantasy Tactics, which I believe still is the king of its niche of turn-based, grid-based tactical RPGs.

But note that, other Mass Effect 2, all the games I mentioned are less than 10 years old.

BG3 is pretty on-rails, so how much do you actually roleplay? You can certainly skip a lot of content, but you don't actually have a ton of choices besides whether to do a quest or not. There's a lot of gameplay options of how to complete the quests that you do, but the end result is generally the same. The one big exception is how the Druid's Grove resolves in Act 1, where there are numerous branching options. However, even there the outcome basically boils down to whether you have access to the Tieflings in Act 2 or not (and Minthara's fate). There's not really a true "evil path" through the game, just a good path and a good path with less content. Which means, it comes down to how you define roleplaying.

A game like Disco Elysium blows BG3 out of the water in terms of truly playing a character that can take different options through the game.

A game like Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous beats BG3 in terms of character build roleplaying.

A game like The Witcher 3 or the Mass Effect trilogy beats BG3 in terms of playing as a defined character going through a set narrative.

A game like Cyberpunk 2077 beats BG3 in terms of the mechanical expression of gameplay (i.e., all the different ways you can resolve combat encounters).

Don't get me wrong, I love BG3. But I don't think it is best in category for any of the ways you can define roleplaying. It's a very good RPG in many different ways, and it may be the actual best ever in cinematic quality, but its hard for me to see how its the best "in terms of what it's genre is trying to achieve".

There are certainly benefits to MJ legalization, and the old system was very screwed up. But anyone claiming weed is harmless is being willfully obtuse. Here's just a few of the studies finding health risks:

https://repositorio.uloyola.es/bitstream/handle/20.500.12412/4656/Theblindmenandtheelephant.SystRevCannabisHealth.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Quote

Evidence shows a clear association between cannabis use and psychosis, affective disorders, anxiety, sleep disorders, cognitive failures, respiratory adverse events, cancer, cardiovascular outcomes, and gastrointestinal disorders. Moreover, cannabis use is a risk factor for motor vehicle collision, suicidal behavior and partner and child violence. Cannabis use is a risk factor for several medical conditions and negative social consequences. There is still little data on the dose-dependency of these effects; evidence that is essential in order to define, from a public health perspective, what can be considered risky use of cannabis. This definition should be based on quantitative and qualitative criteria that informs and permits the evaluation of current approaches to a regulated cannabis market.

https://purehost.bath.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/242102875/Cannabis_potency_review_Clean_version.pdf

Quote

Overall, use of higher potency cannabis, relative to lower potency cannabis, was associated with increased risk of psychosis and CUD. Evidence was mixed for depression 2 and anxiety. The association of cannabis potency with CUD and psychosis highlights its relevance in healthcare settings, public health guidelines, and policies on cannabis sales. Standardisation of exposure measures and longitudinal designs are needed to strengthen the evidence.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Valentina-Lorenzetti/publication/340444978_Adolescent_cannabis_use_cognition_brain_health_and_educational_outcomes_A_review_of_the_evidence/links/61448dff519a1a381f672643/Adolescent-cannabis-use-cognition-brain-health-and-educational-outcomes-A-review-of-the-evidence.pdf

Quote

Systematic reviews find that adolescent cannabis use is inconsistently associated with alterations in the structure of prefrontal and temporal brain regions. Meta-analyses reveal functional alterations in the parietal cortex and putamen. Differences in the orbitofrontal cortex predate cannabis use; it is unclear if they are affected by continued cannabis use and prolonged abstinence. Longitudinal and twin studies report larger declines in IQ among cannabis users than their non-using peers but it is unclear whether these findings can be attributed to cannabis use or to genetic, mental health and environmental factors. Several longitudinal studies and a meta-analysis of cross-sectional studies suggest that there is some cognitive recovery after abstinence from cannabis. Longitudinal studies and some twin studies have found that cannabis users are less likely to complete secondary school than their non-using controls. This association might reflect an effect of cannabis use and/or the social environment of cannabis users and their cannabis using peers. Cognitive performance is altered in some domains (e.g. IQ, verbal learning) in young people while they are regularly using cannabis. There are two important messages to adolescents and young adults: First, cannabis has potentially detrimental effects on cognition, brain and educational outcomes that persist beyond acute intoxication. Second, impaired cognitive function in cannabis users appears to improve with sustained abstinence.

Is it as bad as heroin? Certainly not. It's probably not even as bad as alcohol (though that's more because alcohol really is quite bad for you). This isn't to say prohibition is correct. But cannabis isn't harmless either, yet many people (and state agencies) have treated it as such since legalization occurred.

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

Somehow though, here where it has been decriminalized and the selling of cannabis in stores, it hasn't worked that way at all.  It's created another criminal mess that the cops aren't -- at this time -- doing a thing about, which is almost all the stores are unlicensed and illegal -- and not paying taxes. People are hanging around them, doing other things that may or may not be illegal, but some of them are really unpleasant for a neighborhood and community.  They are more like public nuisances than actual shops providing services and goods.  And many people continue buying the illegal stuff anyway, because it is better and costs less.

Nothing about legalizing the selling of cannabis turned out as it was said it would, including who got the licenses to sell.  It's not popular among certain groups of politicians to hear, say or admit it, but it is the case.  We are living it daily.  Albany is rather flummoxed.  They've tried to correct course a few times and it made no change at all.

Also the stink and the reek, along with the rest of the garbage that gathers around those stores -- ugh.

Yeah, it is remarkable how badly New York bungled its regulatory scheme and enforcement mechanisms for cannabis legalization. They're basically the case study for other states to review what not to do.

They probably aren't the only state that screwed it up, but they are certainly the most visible.

Hmm, interesting. Generally I've gone with what my favorite release at the time was, rather than retrospectively what I like the most now. Though that isn't possible for the first 5 years or so.

1987: Sid Meier's Pirates

1988: Super Mario Bros 3 

1989: SimCity 

1990: Super Mario World

1991: Civilization

1992: Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past

1993: NBA Jam

1994: Final Fantasy VI

1995: Chrono Trigger

1996: Civilization II

1997: Final Fantasy Tactics

1998: Xenogears

1999: Sid Meier's Alpha Centuri... I guess. This is kind of an impossible year

2000: Final Fantasy IX... maybe? Another impossible year. Going back, I'd only want to play Baldur's Gate 2. But, in the moment, I played a crazy amount of FFIX and loved all of it. But also the Tony Hawk games (1 and 2 both came out) and a ton of others.

2001: Final Fantasy X

2002: The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind

2003: Dynasty Warriors 4...I suppose. I kinda didn't play most games from this year.

2004: World of Warcraft

2005: Civilization IV

2006: Gears of War...sorta by default. Another year I mostly skipped.

2007: Mass Effect

2008: Saints Row II

2009: Dragon Age: Origins

2010: Mass Effect 2

2011: The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim

2012: Mass Effect 3... but only barely. So many awesome games.

2013: Bioshock Infinite

2014: Dragon Age: Inquisition

2015: The Witcher 3: The Wild Hunt

2016: Overwatch... incredible how much the game/sequel has fallen in my opinion

2017: Hollow Knight

2018: Pathfinder: Kingmaker

2019: Disco Elysium

2020: Hades

2021: Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous

2022: Elden Ring

2023: Immortality... for the very specific reason that it was one of the few games I've been able to play together with my girlfriend. And we had a great time. More traditionally, it'd be Baldur's Gate III.

It's interesting to see how much my tastes changed over time. When I was younger I loved JRPGs and strategy games and now it's very rare I'd go to those genres. And after 2015, I almost totally disengaged from the AAA space. There have been a handful I played and enjoyed beyond Elden Ring and BG3, most notably Control and Cyberpunk. But vast majority I ignore because I know I'll be disappointed.

2 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

Not really. It's more or less open to liberal light social issues and conservative light economic stances. 

Perot was never going to win and if he denied either Clinton or Bush the necessary EC votes Clinton would have been voted in. Again, third parties don't work at the higher levels. You're better off joining a party and influencing it. Run third party if you want for your local school board. 

He was polling in first place that spring, which may very well have been enough to overcome the "wasted vote" concern that usually sinks 3rd party bids. Your own state's experience with Jesse Ventura shows what can happen if a 3rd party bid gets enough momentum going.

Unicorn Overlord is a really fun Vanillaware game on Switch (and maybe PS5?) I've ben playing. It's like Ogre Battle 64 in that it's a tactics game where you don't actually control your units in battle. Instead you are programming them (similar to the FF12 gambits), equipping them, and deciding which ones go in which formations. And then you see how it plays out. It starts simple, but gets complex pretty quickly.

Unfortunately, if you know what you're doing, it's pretty easy. The AI units don't take nearly enough advantage of the options available. Also, the story is very basic. But the artwork and music are top notch. There's lots of little touches to the gameplay loops that are very satisfying. And fully optimizing your formations can be very fun, even if it's kinda unnecessary.

Just now, Maithanet said:

If they wanted to actually move America more towards bipartisanship, then they ought to do it by fighting in the primaries of both parties, rather than fielding 3rd party candidates with no chance of winning.  If they supported people like Hogan in Maryland, Collins in Maine, Dolan in Ohio, and Tester in Montana, that would help make bipartisan deals in the Senate a bit more possible.  You could do ever better in lower profile races in the house, to help fund more mainstream candidates against the edges of both parties. 

I'm not saying that would be a particularly exciting or impactful effort (those "mainstream" candidates are typically well funded anyway), but it would probably show some results and successes would at least be possible.  Instead, they're trying to win the hardest race in the country first, without even a ghost of a chance of actually succeeding. 

Well yes, certainly. Ground up is the only way to achieve lasting change. But that's boring and everyone wants to ignore that.

I will say though, I think Perot 1992 shows that with the right stances and in the right circumstances, a 3rd party presidential candidate can have a real shot. If his campaign hadn't had such a bizarre July that year (including him briefly dropping out of the race), he might've actually won. He was certainly the polling frontrunner in May/June.

10 hours ago, DMC said:

So No Labels is packing it in after they couldn’t find anybody to run under their..no label.  These type of groups are always eye-rolling in their premise that centrism somehow means better and even more righteous.  Not to mention their laughable lack of understanding that the US electoral system simply doesn’t allow for the competitive emergence of third parties.  But what was especially amusing with this effort was they thought they could make a difference during rampant polarization.

Especially since, to have any chance at all, a third party candidate would need to have pretty much the exact opposite stances of what these groups want. They always want the mythical reasonable Republican (read: not too social conservative, but otherwise bog standard). Whereas an actually effective third party candidate would be some populist hybrid of all the positions that these groups hate (e.g., calling for high taxes on the rich and shutting down the border); basically Trump 2016 with some tweaks to appeal to Democrats more and further differentiate from the generic Republican running.

2 hours ago, Ser Lany said:

I was going to post the same thing.

I just have one question for those that have recruited her this way:

  Reveal hidden contents

Should you wait and attack her last, after the other two? I usually do her first, since her area is isolated.

 

I believe that's still pretty buggy though, since it's not really intended. Stuff like Halsin and Minthara sharing an overlapping tent in camp because they have the same location.

25 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

Given the trends in the last few elections, and that Republican incumbents continually push for policies that tick off many members of their own party, I figure the Democrats will retain their majority in the Senate and retake the House.

 

I also note that many Republican politicians seem to loathe each other more than they loathe the Democrats, making it nigh on impossible for them to accomplish many of the goals they claim to want. 

I do think Democrats are in a really good position to take the House back, and I think Biden is a little better than 50-50 to win re-election, but the Senate is a real tough nut to crack. Could Democrats get the clean sweep (minus WV) and keep a 50+VP majority? Sure, but I don't think the odds are in their favor at all right now.

However, if Biden wins and Democrats keep the House and are at 49 Senate seats, I could see a situation where Murkowski finally does flip sides in exchange for enough goodies and in the name of avoiding total gridlock.

But we'll see. I do think polling is basically totally broken right now, which is why I'm a bit more bullish than some on Biden's chances. But, without reliable polling, it's real hard to make any sort of informed forecast as to how things will go.

52 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Does congress have the authority to force Trump to order troops? I'm pretty sure the answer is no. 

Sort of, yes. They can't easily force him to do things, but they can easily force him to not do things. Withdrawing troops from NATO bases costs money for instance, and Congress could include a rider in the appropriations bills that no funding may be used to withdraw troops. This is the exact tactic Republicans used to stop Obama from closing Gitmo. 

Granted, there is the wrinkle of how far Trump would try pushing his pardon power; e.g., ordering the defense secretary to illegally provide funding to withdraw troops and then pardoning him. Though that does run into the potential barrier of the military being supposed to ignore illegal orders. Also, I do think there's 5+ SCOTUS votes to reinterpret presidential pardon power if Trump tried being that much of an outright dictator.

Decided to give honor mode a shot, and am trying to avoid anything truly cheesy to beat it. I also still want to do most of the content, rather than rush through things. So far I'm level 5 and just wiped out the Goblins. I think so long as I don't get too greedy, I'm probably in the clear the rest of the game now that I gotta the powerboost of extra attacks and 3rd level spells. Just gotta delay certain fights until I'm over-leveled (like Auntie Ethel).

The one tight spot so far was fighting the goblins outside the shattered sanctum at level 4. I got over-confident and tried taking on everyone at once without any real prep. Ended up having 3 party members die and had to have Astarion drink the triple-distance jumping potion and escape far enough away so he could flee to camp and pay Withers to bring everyone back.

4 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

I'd think the Democrats would also wave through a combined bill. It'd be utter madness to leave Ukraine hanging to make some hay and grandstand over Gaza. Maybe with Europe literally an ocean away Ukraine looks more like an issue to play politics over (as shown by the GOP). But I'd like to think the House Democrats are smarter.

Depending on how things shake out, Democrats could straight up have the majority and just make Jeffries Speaker (albeit only until a few special elections in safe Republican seats wrap up). Right now, if nothing else changes or really unexpected things happen, from April 30 to May 21 the Republican majority will be down to 217-214. There's been ongoing rumors that another couple House Republicans are already planning to resign soon. If there's a new round of chaos because of a move to vacate the speaker, it's not that hard to image a couple more than that calling it quits and all of a sudden Democrats have a 214-213 majority or thereabouts. And since special elections take time to organize, they could potentially have that majority for a month or two.

Fantastical? Sure. But not actually as crazy unlikely as it sounds.

18 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

It's like a near perfect portrait of a deal with a devil.

I know referencing movies is hackneyed, but I'm reminded of that part in Kingdom of Heaven where the crusaders are laughing at "those sorts of Christians" who actually try following Jesus' teachings.

Anyway, good to see everybody.