I agree almost 100% with you on this. I did play Oblivion, but Skyrim has the more interesting world IMO which makes it a slightly better game. The strength of Bethesda games that makes them good, in my opinion, is the same every time: explore a large interesting world with your own created character. This explains (in part) why people like Morrowind so much: the world is just so weird and interesting.
The problem is they don't know how to improve on that concept. Instead they are mostly adding features that either don't add anything to it or actively detract from it. For example, Fallout 4 received settlement building and weapon crafting. But, the time I'm spending on my town, I'm not actually out exploring. If I can craft weapons, I care less about the cool weapons I find in dungeons. Now, Starfield got rid of most of the crafted world altogether in exchange for procedural planets that aren't interesting to explore at all.
Aan an aside, I don't think it even makes sense to compare the first two fallout games with the Bethesda ones. Fallout 3 and beyond are not really sequels, they're a completely different series set in the same universe.
She did in fact say that and your link doesn't refute that.
Come now. She very clearly denies saying it in the interview I linked to:
Several reviewers accused you of saying that all intercourse was rape. I haven't found a hint of that anywhere in the book. Is that what you are saying?
Andrea Dworkin: No, I wasn't saying that and I didn't say that, then or ever.
If you want to claim she's lying about her own statements, find me a direct quote of her saying it.
Andrea Dworkin was an influential feminist mainly in the '80 and '90. She was pretty clearly anti pornography, at least as it existed in her time (she died in 2005. Who knows what she might think of some of the stuff out there today). She's also one of the most frequently misquoted feminists of all time, particularly by anti-feminists. she did not say all heterosexual intercourse was rape:
Several reviewers accused you of saying that all intercourse was rape. I haven't found a hint of that anywhere in the book. Is that what you are saying?
Andrea Dworkin: No, I wasn't saying that and I didn't say that, then or ever. There is a long section in Right-Wing Women on intercourse in marriage. My point was that as long as the law allows statutory exemption for a husband from rape charges, no married woman has legal protection from rape. I also argued, based on a reading of our laws, that marriage mandated intercourse—it was compulsory, part of the marriage contract. Under the circumstances, I said, it was impossible to view sexual intercourse in marriage as the free act of a free woman. I said that when we look at sexual liberation and the law, we need to look not only at which sexual acts are forbidden, but which are compelled.
The whole issue of intercourse as this culture's penultimate expression of male dominance became more and more interesting to me. In Intercourse I decided to approach the subject as a social practice, material reality. This may be my history, but I think the social explanation of the "all sex is rape" slander is different and probably simple. Most men and a good number of women experience sexual pleasure in inequality. Since the paradigm for sex has been one of conquest, possession, and violation, I think many men believe they need an unfair advantage, which at its extreme would be called rape. I don't think they need it. I think both intercourse and sexual pleasure can and will survive equality.
It's important to say, too, that the pornographers, especially Playboy, have published the "all sex is rape" slander repeatedly over the years, and it's been taken up by others like Time who, when challenged, cannot cite a source in my work.
Second, she died almost twenty years ago my dude. Intercourse was published in '87 during the second wave of feminism. Why are you misquoting her as an example of current mainstream discourse? And even if we're going to be talking about feminist views of the 80's, you're conveniently ignoring sex-positive feminism. The sex wars were like, the defining feminist debate of that era.
All well and good, but the term dictatorship here still refers to a situation where the state apparatus has complete control over the means of production, in other words a total centralisation of power. Indeed in Marxism-Leninism the dictatorship takes the form of a vanguard party forming a single party state. Whichever way you look at it, practical power resides with a very small group of individuals.
The contrast with the eventual stateless communist society, in which power would be completely decentralised, is quite striking. It's not quite clear to me how Marxist-Leninist theory envisioned the transition from one to the other, although it seems to me there was a general feeling that central economic planning and industrialization would fairly quickly lead to the end of scarcity altogether, which in hindsight seems... very optimistic.
If you ask me, the ideals of communism mostly died around the same time as Lenin. Pretty much all communist states that have existed (and currently exist) are mainly interested in maintaining their own power structures rather than actually working their way towards the idealised communist society. Which pretty much just makes them dictatorships in the classical sense.
Regarding the cognitive dissonance required to A) value decentralization of power, and also B) support the CCP: 🤦
One of the tenets of Marxism-Leninism is that a dictatorship is required to guide the proletariat to communist society (which would be completely stateless). So the dissonance is inherent in Leninist dogma 🤷
And the upside down flying is simply due to gliding mechanics, no?
Not sure what you mean by this. But planes still generate lift when flying upside down. Wings with a symmetrical curve can also generate lift. Flat wings with no curve at all can also generate lift.
Pressure differences are definitely involved. That's the only way air pushes against things, after all, so the fact that there is a lift force implies a pressure difference. However the cause of the pressure difference is rather complicated.
Some things to think about: symmetrical wings, with the same curve on bottom and top, can fly perfectly fine. Flat wings, with no curve at all, don't fly quite as well but with the proper angle of attack can also generate lift. Additionally, planes fly perfectly well upside down.
If this curve explanation were complete, how could those things work?
Just a mistake I think. Americans are so steeped in gun culture that when they hear calibur, their brain goes immediately to gun calibers. Autocorrect also might play a role.
"Theoretically" is worth very little. It is pretty much the same for every concept NPP, that once construction starts on an actual practical plant, ugly problems start coming up all over the place that were not considered or thought of in the concept stage. Corrosion is one of the biggest ones.
Fructose is converted into glucose by the liver, so it won't solve much in the end.
But I looked it up. This is just a bunch of herb/fruit extracts. Ginseng, guarana, maca root, that sort of thing. Does nothing of course. And they charge $50 per bottle.
I feel like this doesn't qualify as an ordering relationship, because of the circular nature of the wheel: for any two elements a and b (a ≠ b) on the wheel it's both true that a is further clockwise than b and b is further clockwise than a (just keep rotating). This violates the antisymmetry property that an ordering relation should have.
You can fix it by establishing some point on the wheel as "least clockwise" (essentially unfolding it into just a straight line) but that immediately establishes a total ordering.
xAI just finished up a funding round worth $6bn, he doesn't need to use his own money. It's the usual bunch of VC funds: Fidelity Sequoia, Kingdom Holdings (that's a Saudi fund).
I agree almost 100% with you on this. I did play Oblivion, but Skyrim has the more interesting world IMO which makes it a slightly better game. The strength of Bethesda games that makes them good, in my opinion, is the same every time: explore a large interesting world with your own created character. This explains (in part) why people like Morrowind so much: the world is just so weird and interesting.
The problem is they don't know how to improve on that concept. Instead they are mostly adding features that either don't add anything to it or actively detract from it. For example, Fallout 4 received settlement building and weapon crafting. But, the time I'm spending on my town, I'm not actually out exploring. If I can craft weapons, I care less about the cool weapons I find in dungeons. Now, Starfield got rid of most of the crafted world altogether in exchange for procedural planets that aren't interesting to explore at all.
Aan an aside, I don't think it even makes sense to compare the first two fallout games with the Bethesda ones. Fallout 3 and beyond are not really sequels, they're a completely different series set in the same universe.