It's true. Obviously it makes for simpler puzzle design plus was easier to ignore the full capability (even the version in 2 seems to just work enough to allow the set-piece), so it seems silly to use developer limitation as a gotcha.
That's a stretch, and you're likely assuming that all Palin voters would vote for Begich. Again Peltola already had 48.8% in round 1 and wasn't the incumbent.
I also don't think weaker wide appeal (beyond majority) is the best way, as that seems like a potential race to a position-less (or simply inoffensive but ineffective) candidate. Though in this case it seems close, at least if it's red vs blue moderates.
Also sure, if Palin voters would've voted strategically their side might've won. I'm not sure if it's because they fell for the trappings of FPtP, because they were unwilling to vote for a moderate and thus bet on the wrong candidate etc. But voting for the non-incumbent as their first vote would've been safer as it'd allow them to still be a Palin voter if Begich lost in round 1 as he did. I don't think the situation is terrible, as under FPtP the only strategy would be for Begich voters to vote for Palin (full stop) which clearly they didn't even want to do as their second choice.
I get what you mean now, but I think it's significant that many Begich voters didn't want Palin if they'd rather the other side win. Or not ranking anyone at all, which might be an issue of R messaging or unwillingness to support a different candidate.
Palin was also the incumbent, which means people will be likely to vote for them. I don't see that being avoided unless she would've dropped out and endorsed Begich but it sounds like they weren't on good terms.
Yes different ranking systems could be better (though it is nuanced), but it's still a massive step up from FPtP.
Also Palin voters staying home wouldn't have helped. EDIT: More correct point added above
That's their point though. The current winners know they wouldn't be the first choice if we had a system that allowed honest voting. It might save them against republicans, but it gives progressives even more of a chance.
EDIT: Also sure, if Palin voters would've voted strategically their side might've won. I'm not sure if it's because they fell for the trappings of FPtP, because they were unwilling to vote for a moderate and thus bet on the wrong candidate etc. But voting for the non-incumbent as their first vote would've been safer as it'd allow them to still be a Palin voter if Begich lost in round 1 as he did. I don't think the situation is terrible, as under FPtP the only strategy would be for Begich voters to vote for Palin (full stop) which clearly they didn't even want to do as their second choice.
Most released vapor is likely expelled out the chimney, plus due to increased humidity capacity of hot air it likely absorbs some from the home (especially with a fireplace, likely cooling down by absorbing water much faster than conducting its heat away) in some way before being expelled. A setup like this also likely causes a negative pressure, drawing air from outside which is also likely dry if it's winter cold.
Also, water vapor released through the chimney is lost energy (even if the steam isn't hot, moist air has more thermal capacity than dry air because water).
“I read that if the mushrooms are cooked properly, which I’m sure they were at this very good restaurant, that they have no impact. But all of us enjoyed the mushrooms [and] the restaurant, and none of us felt any ill-effects from having eaten them,” she said.
It's a shame, because "I learned that later" is such an iconic phrase (although I'm sure people will use it anyway).
I gave the title of it and I figured that would easily be found (title only because it was something I saw in not-logged-in YT recommendations, figured others may have seen it too).
I know that's probably rhetorical, but probably a similar problem to modern movies where (as described in the video Why Modern Movies Suck - They're Too Expensive) they are going after spectacle (rather than story or other elements) and due to cost they must make a 'safe' product to stay profitable, where a bland but universally palatable product will sell more tickets/copies than a stellar niche thing.
I'd also add that companies know they can usually ride the success of their own name/brand recognition. Even worse here with games because of pre-ordering, early-access as a product, and crowd-funding (which some wildly successful publishers still do--on top of unpaid self-promotion and all the other things--because people still think of them as indie).
Would simply changing conservative university to PragerU not be more context/more descriptive? I can't even see it being called editorializing if it's more accurate.
The internet is part of it (a crutch or surrogate, a reason to not leave the house, a quick time-filler that doesn't require extra space or money), but I think that outside factors are bigger. For instance I live in a semi-rural area and don't have a car, so I don't really have options anyway (particularly not wanting to spend money). If the internet went out today I'd just be really alone and with nothing to do.
Also the decline of social capital hasn't been so bad everywhere, and wouldn't you know it the countries that have the most social capital seem to also be the ones that also top other charts like for happiness or healthcare outcomes. The ones that some people in the US look to as an example for better policy and society structure.
As someone who has never really made friends, modern reality (and lack of community/prosperity) is a bit freeing even though it's tragic. As in there really is no point in thinking about imaginary scenarios about meeting people as the more I go out for errands the more I know that a hello isn't even guaranteed (and likely the only type of interaction).
That's just how it is, thinking about it that way makes it a lot less stressful.
Yeah, and having a long experience doing that in Oblivion didn't really help me much due to it being much less forgiving (particularly dice-roll attacks). Open-world also kinda screws you over on first playthrough (particularly if you do a bad build), like how you might not actually get relevant equipment early on.
Though my 1st Oblivion run was funny (and salvageable), with Morrowind I basically had to run from everything (yes, I had the cliff racers moment) and progress seemed much slower (and meta-learning curve higher) to the point that I (a person with a lot of free time) gave up on it.
I much prefer the Fallout (3/NV) experience/level system even though it's less "immersive", I like that it just gives you the choice plus new ways of altering gameplay feel (both perks and checks) particularly when it does more than a simple stat change.
Though even this system I feel could be simplified in some ways and explored/expanded in others (I was writing ideas down at one point). ...but thus far even trying that is way beyond non-dev me, particularly the content that'd make it worthwhile. That and the violence aspect seems a bit weird (then again that's kind of part of the core loop, and usually games in general).
I made a similar comment, but put my brain in a robotic/cyborg body or at least hook it up to a computer. I don't care to have a copy of my brain made.
Brain VR would be pretty cool if it's not digital real-estate/micro-transactions etc.
I could see it being a real thing. When you're making a game it gives you visualization for animations (both physics and visual-only) and shaders (maybe even a simplified stylized version). Random benchmark results/debug info. Drawing attention to syntax mistakes. An important email or video call pops up.
It would be cool and potentially useful, but completely un-asked for and likely distracting and a waste of space. Basically what if your computer was a non-cartoon clippy.
Why the
/s?It's true. Obviously it makes for simpler puzzle design plus was easier to ignore the full capability (even the version in 2 seems to just work enough to allow the set-piece), so it seems silly to use developer limitation as a gotcha.