That this meme is low effort content and it’s spamming everywhere
It’s the first time I’ve seen it.
Can I borrow the rock you’ve been under?
I guess I just unsubscribe from communities where there are a lot of low-effort memes?
But seeing it here is fine, it’s started some discussion.
As it always does. shrug
Aren’t ask lemmy posts “low effort” in general as well in the sense that it’s just a question? My point isn’t that ask lemmy is bad, my point is just because it’s low effort doesn’t mean it’s bad.
Memes are low effort in general
health insurance != healthcare
health insurance profits only exist at the expense of human suffering.
but lets make sure everyone has insurance but not care
I thought this thread was for hot takes 😉
Is this your first time in an “unpopular opinion” thread? lol
health insurance isn’t really insurance either.
it’s like a health services subscription plan with a million convoluted rules.
Young people are people and deserving of rights, including but not limited to the vote. There is no stupid thing a young person could do with their vote that old people don’t already do and we don’t require them not to in order to keep their vote.
When I was mid 20s I thought young kids were too naive. I got older and saw how fucking stupid most adults are and think young kids are much smarter than their predecessors. They should absolutely have a voice in elections. 16 seems like a good age to me
If you can legally work, you should be able to legally vote!
They have a lot less lead poisoning today than those kids from 20th century past, too.
No taxation without representation. Either teens get to vote, or they don’t pay taxes. Anything less is un-American.
Hell yeah! People say that kids and teens don’t have enough life experience to make decisions, but also it’s really difficult to gain life experience when you’re constantly shielded from everything.
Yep. I’d say 12 is a good age to start, because most will be able to read and understand government.
because most will be able to read and understand government
People with dementia and other mental illnesses don’t lose their voting rights, neither is it coupled to IQ. And imo with good reason.
So I am actually not sure why we are applying this hurdle to children to begin with, when we aren’t doing it in other situations.
Pitbulls are not more genetically predisposed towards biting or mauling than other breeds and the supposed “statistical data” on the subject is based around a confluence of inaccurate metrics caused by 1) people not being very good at accurately identifying dog breeds, 2) existing groups that hate pitbulls pushing bad statistics for political purposes, and 3) a self-fulfilling prophecy of pitbulls having a bad reputation and actively being sought out by people who want vicious dogs and who will treat their dogs in such a way as to encourage that behavior. And I say all of this as someone who does not own a pitbull and probably never will.
People overlook vegetarianism and semi-vegetarian lifestyles as an option too much and it is not helpful that real life examples of vegetarian cultures, get co-opted by Vegans purists as “Vegan cultures” in easily disproven claims- thus hurting the whole movement
I don’t eat meat or dairy, so i technically i’m a vegan, right? But i wouldn’t identify as a vegan. When someone cooks and says: oh i forgot that you are vegan, and i used butter, still eat it. When i’m at a bbq and there is a steak leftover, and no one eats it and it goes to the trash, i would eat it. I find the idea of factory meat absolutely repulsive therefore i don’t support it in any way. Once i talked to a vegan guy, and he was super weird so we didn’t have a lot to talk about. I told him something like: when i was a kid i was really into chicken wings, and now in hindsight, i don’t think chicken is actually good. And he said: oh, you are one of THOSE people. Meat eater are like pedophiles, once you fucked a kid, you’ll always be a childfucker.
Eh… Okay, i’ll just stand over there and make sure to never talk to you again
this is called flexitarianism and is totally valid in terms of not wasting food and cohabitating in society. unfortunately some vegetarians would bully a person like you since ideological purity is more important than not wasting food to them
*Some vegans
I’ve never seen a vegetarian bully someone for not being purist enough. Vegans however do it constantly and even harass vegetarians
perhaps
they are great conversations about why people are so annoyed by vegans and most of the time it’s not because vegans are harassing or pushing their agenda, it’s more a question of how we perceive ourself when comparing ourself to others.
it’s due to cognitive dissonance.
For me it is usually due to how incessantly preachy and judgemental some vegans are. I respect their choices and consistent choice of morality. But people tend to get annoyed when someone else feels the right to dictate their morality to them. See also: religious nuts.
I totally understand your point of view and think that your perception is valid. If you try to analyse why you find them preachy and judgemental it could be interesting.
For example would find them so annoying if you agree with them? Is it the discourse that annoys you or the person? Is it your belief system being challenged that annoys you or the facts that are being stated?
It’s always intersting to understand why we feel that way when we are challenged, and veganism is one of a few topic that can create what we called in psychology reactance, an interesting topic.
Veganism is really different than religion tho, cause it is totally backed by science (regarding food production, waste issue, C02 and sentientism) and a logic construct.
For me it is the wholesale - “Everyone can do this, it is a moral failing on your part that you aren’t already vegan” that irks me.
I have a combination of diseases that mean I could never go vegan, but every single time I have interacted with a vegan online they take the stance that I am lying/wrong and just justifying my choices. Well - My choice is to not die of malnutrition while being tied to a toilet 24/7.
Like yes, random internet vegan - You certainly know my dietary needs better than my doctor and I do…
It’s about decreasing demand not decreasing waste. The purpose of flexitarianism is to reduce the demand for animal byproducts. Food waste is a much bigger issue at chain restaurants, especially fast food as it’s often thrown out at the end of the shift as spoilage.
By not eating food that has already been bought and prepared you do not decrease demand.
That’s probably one in 100,000 vegans
I eat whatever I am able to afford and local to me. And I continue to eat what tastes good to me.
Woah this got dark.
I’ve never been closer to vegan than I am now. And I love meat and animal products and have long given up on the illusion of any ethical consumption in capitalism. It just turns out meat is way overpriced and you can make some tasty meals for cheap without meat and most animal products.
I’m a vegetarian just because it’s the cheapest option. Meat is absurd in prices while going fully vegan, where I live, isn’t feasible either.
So I live off a mostly vegetarian diet. It’s not even for ethical reasons. It’s literally a “I want to save money” motivation.
Yeah the only animal I’m tryna save is me. Shits insane rn.
Once governments stop or reduce funding for the meat and dairy industries, prices will continue to go up and more people will be like you. At the end of the day, animal products (especially those from bovines) aren’t super sustainable and cost a lot more than we pay at the supermarket.
deleted by creator
It’s pretty nuts what they’re asking for meat. I don’t do the major shopping in the family but last time I went to get some ground beef… holy sweet baby cheez wiz. I could swear it the price had doubled since the last time I looked (which was probably pre covid).
There are so many great vegetarian recipes out there. Like, I mean, original things that were designed without meat in mind from the start not fake meat stuff like those vegetarian ribs I made one time. shudders
The prices for beyond/impossible are 1:1 with real ground beef at my local grocerywhore.
The choice is so easy.
I wish those worked for me. It’s an autistic texture thing for me, so anytime I try substitutes I nearly gag.
I think as something like a burger it’s not that great but stuff like shepherds pie or meatballs where I’m adding other ingredients and seasoning it’s indistinguishable. I even fooled my whole family with some homemade beyond meatballs.
Now I kinda wanna try a hamburger lasagna.
“the prices are 1:1 with real ground beef”
Okay, does it provide the same nutrients at the same amount of higher? Even then you’re comparing to ground beef, which is too expensive on its own already
I’ll stick to my vegetarian diet
I’ve had debates with vegans on something similar:
I’m not vegan, I’ll never be vegan. That’s a complete non-starter for me.What I have done is reduce my meat intake from 2/sometimes 3 meals a day to 1 meal per day - occasionally (less than once per month) two. Once Lab-grown meat is a viable alternative on cost/taste/texture, I’ll be all over that. I still won’t be vegan. Even if I reach a point where no animals are harmed from my diet.
I believe it is far easier to convince 1 Million people to do this than it would be to convert 100,000 people to full veganism. A Million people doing this would save Billions more animals per year than 100,000 vegan conversions and maybe even in itself convert a few of those people to full veganism along the way.
They’re never interested. It’s all or nothing. Black or white. Vegan or Animal killer. They usually have issues with lab grown meat, as well.
It’s as though they’re a member of an elite club and membership is more important than actually saving animals.
I find it so crazy when i stumble across a post of yours in the wild! Hi!
They’re never interested.
This is disingenuous AF. The vegans I’ve known would have all taken this huge win
I mean, most vegans would still commend your effort to reduce animal product consumption.
But from a moral standpoint, simply eating less animal products really doesn’t have much value. Imagine using your argument for other moral dilemmas.
“Racism is wrong, so I reduced the amount of racial slurs I use to only 1/3”
“Rape is wrong, so I only rape on Mondays now” (in reference to meatless Mondays)I hate to be so militant about it, but you either think animal abuse is acceptable or you don’t.
Now, what I do think could be a moral standpoint, if you really want to still be able to eat meat, is to only eat “humane” meat. I put “humane” in quotes because even farmers with the best intentions are still killing animals young. I don’t personally believe any animal product can be humane, but even then I can recognize that any animal that was raised on a pasture and ate real food is more ethical to eat than one in a factory.
So if you genuinely only ate pasture raised beef and chicken (and you were sure about it), then I would say that is quite honorable.
You’re probably still eating way too much animal products and you’ll most likely get bowel cancer and gout if you keep eating like that.
Most likely? By this logic, most people are killed by bowel cancer. They aren’t.
You absolutely can’t let perfect be the enemy of good.
To be honest, I could see myself as a vegetarian. I can still eat eggs, have mayo, and most importantly, eat cheese. Also with vegans, they don’t just abstain from eating animals, they also abstain from consuming animal products, and using them in general meaning that not only are you giving up on eggs and cheese, but also leather boots and jackets etc. That’s too much. We are omnivores. Our ancestors survived on the scraps left by lions and other predators. Our only way to keep warm was leather skins. We could survive on berries and fungi, but we couldn’t keep warm with fire only. Anyways, I’m taking this a bit too far, but my point is, I’m supportive of vegetarians, but not of vegans.
human are omnivore, it’s a biological trait not a diet. Being omnivore doesn’t mean that you need to consume animal products, in the contrary, it means that you can avoid them and still strive, as opposed as carnivore.
own your choices, plain and simple. don’t blame other for taking action to reduce suffering, CO2 and waste of ressources.
Humanity has changed a lot over the years, much of it by choice.
I think our ancestors also hunted large game which is why we evolved to be endurance hunters. Not that we are bound so tightly to our evolutionary as all that. But still.
I support vegans and respect their decisions, I just have little interest in being one myself.
Although when I buy leather products (belts shoes) I tend to buy ones that last decades. So there’s that. And yeah I try to reduce meat consumption and I strive to do better.
There’s no such thing as the diet police. No one not terminally-online really gives a shit about movement-purity. Just eat as ethically as possible.
What? You’re saying that because we needed leather in the past, we can’t wear cotton now to keep warm? At one point we didn’t have easy access to plant-based proteins so we should continue eating animal products? By that logic, we didn’t have vaccines in the past, so does that mean we can’t use them now? Our ancestors also didn’t have the internet, so why are you here?
The past was a completely different world. Don’t let it hold you back from doing better now.
the fact that you label some vegan as purist says more about your own conflicts that the way vegan choose to live. vegan purist is a nonsense. you are either vegan or not.
you choose what you consume, but don’t put the blame on vegan. for me being vegetarian or carnist is not so different. vegetarian are still supporting the status quo and it’s fair to state this fact.
once again it’s your choice. own it.
Sorry, but I just don’t think this attitude is useful for reducing harm to animals. It’s rare for people to hear about veganism and then go straight from eating meat to eating 0 animal products, for 100 reasons. I spent like 10 years vegetarian before finally going vegan.
This overly critical attitude and stereotypes associated with it do a lot to push people away from bothering with making any steps at all.
No one is able to fully eliminate animal harm from their lives, and any steps that anyone is making on the road to reducing it should be applauded. It’s our only option if we want to be anything other than a hated minority.
no. the attitude that is not useful is to make up arguments to justify our choices.
we know the fact. we choose to act on them or not. and this is the same for a lot more topics than veganism.
don’t return the responsibility on the people who act to diminish suffering and waste of ressources. vegetarians like carnists contribute to keep the status quo. it’s not debatable.
you choose to live how you want - within the limit of the law - and it’s totally ok. but own your choices, you don’t need to justify them.
we all are full of contradiction, and it’s more than ok. but don’t make up stuff to make them ok. just accept them.
Any comment that gets more than one upvote fails the subject.
I gave your comment its second upvote.
Upvotes ideally don’t equate to agreement though.
I disagree. Lemmy is a very small group of individuals and these type of threads are going to have similar minded people finding eachother. In the grand scheme of things we are next to nothing in scale of the billions of people on this planet.
Hawaiian pizza is good.
Not that it’s the best pizza, or even my favorite. It’s just a fine option.
That pedos shouldn’t be subject to extra-legal punishments. Think being lynched and shit. I also don’t think they should be getting their own special cases in the law beyond those with a clear purpose of preventing reoffending.
Don’t get me wrong, I think they are pure scum.
But things we allow on the basis of the accused being a pedo or terrorist have a habit of spilling over and affecting the general population. A lot of bad laws have made it onto books by blaming these two groups, for example.
A lot of bad laws have made it onto books by blaming these two groups, for example.
You can’t even classify or discuss pedophilia as a sexual disorder and not an intentional decision without sounding like a pedophile.
I think the worst thing we do is basically shut down non-harmful outs.
We attack therapists who don’t outright vilify non-offending pedos, without considering the fact that said pedos come to them because they don’t want to offend, don’t want to hurt.
If these people don’t have harmless outs, they will instead turn to harmful outs and covering up their crimes.
If these people don’t have harmless outs, they will instead turn to harmful outs and covering up their crimes.
Wasn’t it that studies show that in most child abuse cases the abuser is not a pedophile?
Depends what terminology you use. Officially, pedophile means sexually interested in prepubescent children, with a second term, ephebephile, for those with sexual interest in teenagers, but in general usage, ‘pedophile’ usually covers all sexual interest in minors.
So using the official definition you’re correct, as most cases involve teenagers, but most people will just call them pedophiles anyway.
For clarity’s sake, I’ve been using the term pedo in the general sense (all people attracted to minors).
“Conservatives” hate disorder research, because they are most of them.
An egregious crime should have an egregious sentence but only in accordance with a fair due process. I also feel like far right groups are packing gunpowder in the barrel of the musket with hate for pedophilia (an easy thing for anyone to hate) and are planning to use it to invoke violence on people with fabricated evidence against them. It’s becoming a dangerous powder keg
Absolutely. As for your second point, they do this with LGBT+ groups all the time, trying to tie them to pedophilia to get the FUD going.
Force damage in D&D 5E is too poorly-defined to be a good part of the game and exists solely for when the designers don’t want any characters or creatures to have access to resistance against the thing in question. Either we need an actual description of what happens to a thing that gets hit by it or it should be cut; the vast majority of the things that deal it could perfectly easily be magical bludgeoning / piercing / slashing. Spiritual weapon and Bigby’s hand are particularly egregious
I don’t know what or if there are any cannon explanations, but I always had understood force as well… force. Bludgeoning, piercing, slashing are damage amplifiers that make do with limited force. But if you trying to damage say, a rock, they are basically irrelevant. But you put a rock in a hydrolic press and apply a enough force, and boom it cannot withstand. So being hit by an eldritch blast is less like being shot and more like being hit with a high pressure oil leak.
Physically this doesn’t make sense. Bludgeoning piercing slashing all have effects on breaking a rock.
A hydraulic press is just a slow application of high forces from a pressure trick.
Getting hit by a high pressure oil leak can certainly resemble being shot.
See, as an example, water jet cutting
We know what the damage type of a crushing force is in 5E, though. It’s bludgeoning. That’s why the grasping hand effect of Bigby’s hand does bludgeoning, as does any constricting attack from the likes of giant snakes.
High-pressure fluid jets can cut through things if sufficiently narrow and fast, but at that point you’re still just looking at piercing or slashing. The injury isn’t different to being poked with a sharp stick other than that you are also wet now. If it’s not enough to cut with… well that’s bludgeoning again
High pressure fluid injuries are significantly different, but we’re moving off track.
Let’s come from the other direction. Bludgeoning, slashing and piercing all do damage through the application of force. However, the damage they do is amplified and relise on a particular susceptibility of the victim.
Bludgeoning amplifies is force through rapid impact time.
Piercing amplifies is force through a sharp hard single point.
Slashing is more complex, but it amplifies with a sharp hard edge kinda.
But these ‘tricks’ to deal more damage don’t work on everything. For example bludgeoning requires ‘inelastic deformation’ before movement. I.e. a bat breaks a skull but not a tennis ball. I can see why crushing is put in this category, it recognises that damage is due to the susceptibility of the target to be inelastically deformed (bruised, broken bones, crushed organs w/e). Everything has an inelastic deformation point, put a tennis ball in a press and you can crush it. But in this case it’s not that the ball is susceptible to bludgeoning damage, it’s just that you have applied lots of force.
Same with piercing, the effectiveness of a spear is reduced by something that can distribute its force over a larger area. Which doesn’t matter if the ‘spear’ has a huge amount of force behind it. At which point it doesn’t matter if it was a spear with a sharp point or just a rod (or jet of fluid).
exists solely for when the designers don’t want any characters or creatures to have access to resistance against the thing in question
Broach of shielding grants resistance to force damage
There’s also armour of resistance and potion of resistance in the DMG, which can be force resistant. But that’s very few items, and in 5E the magic items you get are entirely dependent on your DM giving them to you. Note how they’re all in the DMG, after all. Compare this to, say, fire damage. Three player races have resistance, the 1st-level absorb elements spell gives most casters easy access to fire resistance, and two barbarian subclasses and two sorc subclasses can get it regularly. With force damage, I think the only option presented to the player is one of the aforementioned barb classes and a couple of abilities that give general resistance to all damage.
On the DM’s side, of the literally several thousand creatures published for 5E, there are 5 with immunity, 12 with resistance, and 2 with vulnerability. 19 total creatures out of over 3,000 have any unusual interaction with the damage type. Compare this to 90 for radiant, another very low one; 552 for fire; 671 for bludgeoning (including the ones that only interact with mundane bludgeoning). 19 creatures is so vanishingly rare that I don’t think my description is an unreasonable one.
All drugs should be legalized. Not quiet the whole World but a large portion.
Doing drugs should be decriminalized, but not legal. Ideally when someone is found addicted to drugs they would be provided help rather than punishment. Selling drugs should remain criminal but consequences should be determined based on the amount found selling and to who (like a child or someone who’s pregnant would be a higher penalty at the discretion of the court), legalizing would just give a tax incentive for pushing drugs similar to gambling.
Edit: I want to clarify, I’m talking about addictive drugs with known negative health effects like meth. Weed can be legal, who cares.
The issue is that there is not always a physical element to addiction. You can become addicted to anything that gives you a positive dopamine boost. It’s why porn and food can become addictive to people.
I get what you’re going for here but almost anything can be considered a “drug” if we are just using addictive and bad for you as the qualifiers. Even drinking too much water can kill you.
What you are saying ia only half true. While you can get addicted to let’s say your phone, it’s still natural. You can put it down and pick it up any time, you just have a harder time reasoning with yourself, and will do it sometimes out of habbit.
However drugs manipulate your brain, and getting addicted to drugs is on another level of addiction. The “harder to reason with yourself” part becomes near impossible. Without help you borderline can’t stop.
With a “natural” addiction your impulses are still in a healthy range. You are in control, it just guides you to something that you like subconsciously.
I oversimplified and I’m also not a professional at this topic, but I did some research. I was curious about why can’t ppl stop playing some videogames, while others are just an activity, nothing more. (Also why the tiktok formula is so addicting)
Yeah, but we already have laws against specific drugs so this wouldn’t be any worse than what we already have, instead it’s an approach to make it safer without just saying it’s okay. But yeah the decision of if it should be a controlled substance should be left up to a board of medical professionals rather than politicians as it is now.
Search engines should not ever, under any circumstances use geo-location data to provide results. If I search for “current weather,” it shouldn’t know where I am, and it should require qualifiers on my part if I want to narrow it down.
On a similar topic, my devices should not automatically change settings to adapt to my routine. Settings should only change if I manually change them.
We learn and teach inferior personal computing practice, and most people don’t realize how much they are missing.
The vast majority of people outside of enthusiast circles have absolutely no idea what a personal computer is, how it works, what is an operating system, what it does, and how it is supposed to be used. Instead of teaching about shells, sessions, environments, file systems, protocols, standards and Unix philosophy (things that actually make our digital world spin) we teach narrow systems of proprietary walled gardens.
This makes powerful personal computing seem mysterious and intimidating to regular people, so they keep opting out of open infrastructures, preferring everything to come pre-made and pre-configured for them by an exploitative corporation. This lack of education is precisely what makes us so vulnerable to tech hype cycles, software and hardware obsolescence, or just plain shitty products that would have no right to exist in a better world.
This blindness and apathy makes our computing more inaccessible and less sustainable, and it makes us crave things that don’t actually deserve our collective attention.
And the most frustrating thing is: proper personal computing is actually not that hard, and it has never been more easy to get into, but no one cares, because getting milked for data is just too convenient for most adults.
Completely agree. Now my hot take for this thread:
If governments some time in the 90s had decided from the start to ban computer hardware from being sold with pre-installed software then we wouldn’t have this problem. If everyone had to install their own operating system from scratch, which like you say isn’t hard if it’s taught, it would have killed the mystery around computing and people would feel ownership over their computers and computing.
I think the main issue is the fact that learning about how every single component in a computer works, would take an enormous amount of time and dedication, you cannot just inspire the interest in people to learn about something they are completely uninterested about.
You may see others as blind, careless individuals that want to get their data milked, but we all have to make sacrifices for convenience. We just cannot be interested in every single thing.
At a societal level, we all cannot and shouldn’t be knowing what the Unix philosophy is and what it represents for software design.
That being said, I do agree with the main point of being taught inferior PC practice, education in the schools I attended was mostly done via rote learning rather than explaining the tools that we have created to solve which problems or situations.
Given the importance of computers in our time, isn’t it only proportionally justified to spend an enormous amount of time and dedication in teaching it properly?
Only computer nerds think this way. People have a finite time and capacity for learning, and if computers can serve their needs without spending a large fraction of that precious resource it would be terrible to mandate such an expenditure anyway.
I wish we could all be completely educated and independent in every way that matters, but it’s not possible.
This is why people on lemmy are confused about a lack of adoption. Federation is significantly confusing and subtle; we’re just mostly dorks with the pre-inclination to get it.
I too have to watch myself to keep from falling into the hole of blaming the dumbing-down of computing systems on a moral failure of users. It is not.
I might have phrased my thought too bluntly: I never intended to frame the problem as any sort of moral failure on the end users’ part. I view this as a failure of our educational institutions.
In my mind, preferring to spend time on (e.g.) MS Office in class, instead of teaching proper computer literacy, is like trying to teach meal-prep with Philips air fryers instead of teaching how to cook.
I hear you, and I too feel like it might be just my aspi-nerdiness speaking, but the same argument could be said about any subject that is considered fundamental to highschool ed. We don’t skip on philosophy, sciences, languages and arts just because they seem less applicable than math or econ, or because “it’s impossible to learn everything”.
Our civ made progress, having invented a fundamentally new tech that is accessible to everyone and now underpins everything. Allowing people to acquire the basic literacy needed to interface with this tech sustainably is the bare minimum we should be doing. I am not talking about turning kids into cyber wizards - just getting their computing up to a level that allows them to make relevant informed choices.
I’m totally with you. I just think the level of informed choices that we nerds seek will not be attainable through a reasonable gen ed curriculum. It would be an improvement, though!
How to learn this? The way it’s taught is so people don’t know they don’t know. What are good starting resources?
I am not a professional educator, but in general I think it is worth to start with basic computer literacy: identifying parts of a PC, being able to explain their overall functions, difference between hardware and software, and what kinds of software a computer can run (firmwares, operating systems, user utilities etc.). This would also be a perfect time to develop practical skills, e.g. (assuming you are a normatively-abled person) learning to touch-type and perform basic electronics maintenance, like opening your machine up to clean it and replace old thermal compounds.
After that taking something like “Operating systems fundamentals” on Coursera would be a great way to go on.
It really depends on your goals, resources and personal traits, as well as how much time and energy you can spare, and how do you like to learn. You can sacrifice and old machine, boot Ubuntu and break it a bunch of times. You can learn how to use virtualization and try a new thing every evening. You can get into ricing and redesign your entire OS GUI to your liking. You can get a single-board computer like RaspberryPi and try out home automation.
Privately owned cars should be banned.
Privately owned cars are fine, but we should abolish minimum parking requirements in zoning codes and outlaw on-street parking. Keep your car, but finding somewhere to park it is your own problem, not society’s.
We should also put all of the societal cost of car ownership and usage on car owners, then. No more subsidizing cars.
But at that point, car ownership becomes so expensive that only the rich can afford it. Which means they get to zoom around on largely uncongested roads while everyone else can’t.
And that doesn’t sit well with me, therefore I’m for a blanket ban.We should also do this for commercial trucks. They cause the vast majority of road damage because of their weight and should pay for the vast majority of road maintenance costs. Charge the true price for freight and then see how profitable it is to ship things to houses.
We the people are subsidizing the for profit trucking industry and that is wrong.
We accept that it’s unhealthy to be a shut-in and never leave your house, never interact with others if you can help it, but equally unhealthy is this sort of toxic extroversion where the thought of being alone with yourself for even a few hours is torture to you. If this is you, clearly you have some shit you need to work out that you’re avoiding. Take a week off from the internet and going out. Don’t talk to anyone. Maybe go camping alone for a couple days. You will survive, and be much more comfortable with yourself for it.
What if you hate yourself but also aren’t that sociable?
Figure out who you are, learn to love yourself, and change the things you don’t like
Zelda BotW and TotK are not fun. The stamina system is pointless and the weapon durability is frustrating. On top of that, the world’s are just sooo empty. There’s really nothing in them. Oh look, an interesting ruin… it’s another repetitive shrine. Oh, that geological formation is really unique aaannnddd it’s another fucking korok seed. That’s all you ever got for exploring. Shrines and korok seeds.
I did like slapping random shit onto my weapons in tears of the kingdom though. All in all to me the games are fine but not really Zelda games.
shrines bad
Most people agree with you there
To the geological formations and all, it’s just nice to explore them. For me the fun about them weren’t potential rewards, but for the purpose of exploring itself, but I get that it’s not for everyone I don’t think the world is empty though, there are plenty of nice sidequests, easter eggs and items to find, especially if you haven’t read any guides.
not really Zelda games.
They are, but Zelda games have changed due to better technical possibilities, ooc wasn’t anything like the 2d Zeldas for example
