They were never boring for me at all and there was lot of strategy and planning involved in troop composition of such stacks. Civ4 was a game about research, development and relationships between civilizations and not an turn based strategy game like latter iterations try to be.
Why do people hate 'doomstacks' I dont get it. It is a 4X game about civilizations after all not a turn based military strategy. There is also startegy involved in doom stack composition and you can beat a much larger doomstack with better troop composition. But like in real life of course, with all things being equal bigger doomstack will defeat smaller one. How realistic are armies of a few thousands man spread across half a continent like in latter Civ series.
I am very concerned about global warming, but we need to find solutions and plans that can include everyone from all political spectrums, and that do not disproportionately affect the poorer sections of society. And if the poor people have to make sacrifices, then other sections of society have to bear the burden too. The rich, but also the state bureaucracies that are only using the crisis to increase their size and spending.
This does not work when there are parts of the political spectrum that won’t even believe there’s a problem, and which reject the scientific consensus out of hand, and which even threaten to defund the scientific research entirely.
Then science and education must adapt to the times and do better to educate and convey their message to a wider audience, everyone must do their part, including scientists and educators. If you exclude half the population from your plans before you even start, you will very probably fail.
Then propaganda and misinformation must adapt to prevent science and education from swaying that half of the population away from profitable fossil fuel extraction.
I think is a very good point and in my opinion one of the reasons for the backlash against green measures across the world. When people just survive, it is hard to justify to pay more for electricity to switch away from fossil fuels, or buy expensive heat pumps etc. I think the green switch should have been planned in such a way to protect poorer people.
> we need to find solutions and plans that can include everyone from all political spectrums
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
What you are delicately saying is that Republicans are children and somehow we must all change to coddle them and their snowflake beliefs.
No, just no. We need accountability and responsibility. Every single Republican that is actually responsible needs to be holding their fellow Republicans to account for the lies they spread.
I have tried every strategy under the sun with my family. When it comes to politics, they just want somebody to tell them they can act like children, which is what today's Republican part gives them.
I understand why you feel this way, but saying it is impossible is too defeatist. People arent horses and their beliefs can change. Isn't it worth the sacrifice to acknowledge the concerns and political views of the opposing side if it means a chance of saving planet earth? We should find common grounds and start a fresh dialogue about climate change. I'm sure there are opportunities to do so.
> acknowledge the concerns and political views of the opposing side if it means a chance of saving planet earth
How in the world will acknowledging their concerns save the planet? Pretending like they have not had their concerns acknowledged and listened to and addressed is also a bit condescending.
I'm not defeatist, but you are definitely not understanding the situation.
The common ground starts with truth, the common ground starts with Republicans being willing to acknowledge me as a human with beliefs too. There's a deep deep deep sickness in the information sphere of the Republican party that needs to be addressed.
The Democratic party has sever information problems on its fringe. But the Republican information problem is coming from the top, from the very leaders that run everything.
> No, just no. We need accountability and responsibility. Every single Republican that is actually responsible needs to be holding their fellow Republicans to account for the lies they spread.
Let's say you're right. How do you plan to do that without "finding solutions and plans that can include everyone from all political spectrums"? How are you going to get some Republicans to hold other Republicans accountable if you haven't found a solution that includes that first subset of Republicans? I suppose you could aim for autocratic top down governmental control, but I think if you look around at the current state of the US government you might see some flaws with that plan.
It's easy to be frustrated and angry and rant at people. It's easy to dismiss them and write them off as not worth the effort. But in the end, the question to have to ask yourself is whether it's more important to be right and that other people do things for the right reasons, or more important to accomplish your goal, and other people do the right things even if its not for the right reason.
Under existing condition an AI news site seems like a good investment idea. Its AI could read all relevant news sources and retell them and republish them in its own articles. It could even have its own AI editors and contributors. Cannot see how human news companies could compete.
That style of journalism is nearly dead. True on the ground investigative journalism is hardly done today, most is just reporting existing public information releases. You don’t have to be at the presser when everything the police chief says will be put in an online transcript.
I am sure it could easily rephrase the articles to tell them without quoting any real or verifiable sources. Many human news companies often do it too.
As AIs can only be trained on datasets of colected human experiences if/when one day a superintelligent AI comes about I am sure it will only percieve us as inferior, unrational and dangerous beigns.
Not caring about animals leads to not caring about nature in general and that is leading towards us destroying earth ecosystem and making our planet not be able to sustain human civilization.
There are some philosophies which teaches that everything was created for human. It was and is good excuse for exploitation of nature. No wonder we have climate change now.
It does not help that those philosophies are also very closedminded and very agressive towards any new ideas or any changes to their worldview and lifestyle.
Less meat consumption should lead to more production and decrease in price of of other types food. Also despite all the suffering in the world people still care very much about the wellbeign of dogs and cats. If anything with inflation and more and more wars around the globe the world needs cheaper food now more than ever.
The inputs into meat today are things like soy and feed corn, which aren't particularly good for people. It's not quite as easy as just not eating meat. Many of the farms need to switch to other crops that are healthy which requires different machines, more labor, or other factors. You probably aren't going to see too much drop in other food prices since much of the cost of foods (especially corn and soy related) is in the processing and distribution, not in the actual growing. Then you need to convince people they want to eat whatever the new product is. You could give people something made from scraps similar to dog food, but that's not going to go over well for a bunch of reasons.
> the world needs cheaper food now more than ever.
We are getting there. The price of food has crashed pretty hard over the last couple of years, and we're already back to 2019 levels, with little sign of that trend stopping. Barring some major shift, food will be cheaper than ever by next year.
It may not actually be cheaper food that you need, but rather cheaper retail workers. While food has crashed, the price of food in the grocery store still seems to be climbing.
