Lemmilicious

I’ll express my last bit of disagreement with your reasoning and then I’ll probably leave this argumentation, but I will read if you choose to respond. This is not what cost means, you are basically saying that your gut tells you it should be cheaper without any supportive arguments. If e.g. the train requires more energy to run faster, that alone could make it more costly, even if it has a higher capacity. Since neither one of us seems to have idea of the actual costs of running trains, I don’t think we’ll get anywhere with this!

Is it really? Because that claim goes against my intuition so if it’s true I would be happy to get more details! But what you say doesn’t quite make sense to me, sorry if I seem pedantic: transporting people faster is not the same as transporting more people. You transport more people per unit time, but not necessarily in total. I also don’t see how faster trains need less staff. When you say it’s cheaper, do you also take into account investment cost, or do you neglect those and just mean operating costs?

I don’t disagree with you, I didn’t mean to say that there’s no way of HSR being good, just that maybe we’re not doing it quite right! Maybe just fixing pricing would be possible, I don’t know what. I also don’t know if they actually got rid of the old tracks or just of the train route. I just want both HSR and the old trains back haha!

That’s really a great article, thanks for the link!

Still, there’s plenty of criticism in the article I linked that is not touched on, I hardly think it becomes irrelevant by reading Jon Worth’s writing! Even with his proposals I’m really not sure if we would get back the cheap and still relatively fast connections that have been removed. To me there’s not a clear benefit to getting rid of the old “low-speed” rail even if we fix SNCF.

So the article is very long so let me TL;DR a little. It mentions that when high speed rail is build, existing low-speed rails are often removed. Those removes routes are a little slower but often MUCH cheaper. I would say, like the author, that more expensive trains that are a little faster doesn’t rhyme well with “let people go fast”. He also has examples of night trains being removed in favour of a high speed rail, which hardly is a time-save if you count sleeping at night! Great examples in the article.

High speed rail doesn’t have to hurt low-speed rail, it just has the way we’ve been doing it in Europe.

Haha I’m scared of sounding like I don’t like high speed rail, which I do! I love trains in general, I’m interrailing right now! Buuut I felt this was a relevant place to link this fascinating article (slightly click-baity headline) about how high speed rail in Europe is actually not constructed in a very good way, because it ends up eliminating many of the positive sides with the European railway network: https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2013/12/high-speed-trains-are-killing-the-european-railway-network/

Edit: fixed typo

Hey, so I side with Ukraine in the current conflict, but in general I’m somewhat of a NATO sceptic and really not a fan of US foreign policy. I was curious about the information you provided, but honestly, in contrast to what you claim, it seems to me that you have not explained most of your points. Yeah there’s been a clear political divide in Ukraine, but it requires an enormous leap of logic to see that as justification of the Russian invasion. Yeah NATO sucks in many ways, and it and Ukraine too have done some shitty things, but again, there seems to be absolutely no sensible argument for any of that to have justified the invasion.

I haven’t watched the French documentary yet, in case any of your arguments relied on it. A quick online search on the journalist does mention several untrue pieces of Russian propaganda that seem to be mentioned in the documentary, though. Any chance you could explain more, or is this lack of explanation all there is for someone curious to understand why the war is happening?

To be fair, “game of the year” feels like it’s meant to measure popularity, while “most innovative” sounds like it shouls measure how innovative a game is, which is perhaps why the two awards get such different reactions.

Definitely Jusant. It was just such a perfect game for me when I played it, chill but engaging in exactly the way I needed it, and something about the story just went straight into my heart unlike any other!

Haha, when I first read your comment I thought you were referring to the first map, before you beat the Prospector, and I was confused how you spent more than 12 hours there 😆 But now I’ve actually gotten to the second act and I totally get what you mean! I don’t like the atmosphere nearly as much there, but I hope I’ll have the enthusiasm to finish the game anyway

I’ve only gotten to the second act so far, but it’s new enough for me to still have interest! I saw on howlongtobeat that it should take around 12 hours, so I hope that me being ready for that will make me last until the end.

In my search for short but awesome games, I just started playing Inscryption! I haven’t gotten very far, but boy does it spark my curiosity, I neeeed to find out what awaits

This article is about the author’s personal relationship to E3 and how it reminds him about unhealthy work habits he has, which he also thinks are commonly occuring in games journalism.

I think it’s very fair not to like the article, I wasn’t overly interested in it myself, but honestly I can’t help but disagreeing with the negativity directed towards the author in many of these comments. Go ahead and dislike the point of the article, but making a uncharitable reading about the author just seems silly to me.

Oh wow, I’m not sure why but somehow it does look great!

Personally I hated the game the first couple of hours before I discovered the autopilot, because I was dying too often too achieve anything interesting. Then I discovered it, and then actually learned to fly, and since then I just loved the game. Maybe consider if you might be in a similar situation, or if maybe it’s just not your thing!

Very on-point critiques of Europe, if we don’t better ourselves it will not only be hard to get other parts of the world to take us seriously, but we will also allow a lot of nasty shit to happen.

My impression is that the hope is it will stop them from doing EEE on us

I started swaying towards defederating after reading this article, maybe you’d like to take a look and see what you think? It argues much better than I ever could.

I mean maybe, but I can’t help to feel a little like this is optimistic speculation, while I’ve read very well-written arguments for blocking threads.net that seem less (albeit still) speculative. I just don’t want to lose what we have, and if we really want to keep growing then we can do so without Meta.