Cethin

I would recommend switching over to Lenox.

Yeah, that guy on the left is pretty cuddly and cute! You’re right!

Yeah, if you were actually in this situation, that isn’t something you’d just forget, unless your intelligence is extremely low (low enough that you probably wouldn’t have the idea to use the rope in the first place). This is bad DMing. They should have said something like: “You’re aware no one is holding the rope. Are you sure?” If that’s actually what they wanted to do, they can do it. If not, they are now aware.

I asked for just a single example of a regulation that could be done away with and that would reduce costs in a meaningful way as it’s pretty much your entire argument.

I’m not an expert. I posted a scholarly article showing this was the case. You promptly ignored it. You lose. You want proof that you wouldn’t accept anyway. I could waste my time citing regulations, and you’d just say that has a purpose, which it does is it required? I’m not wasting my time when you don’t accept the premise (until now) that regulations are increasing the costs artificially. This is done by groups with a goal to keep competition out and increase the price of their product. Why would you support that?

So name one.

As we’ve established, you can’t. You’re not a serious person and so I’m not going to waste any more of my time on you.

You’re like every other nuclear bro I’ve interacted with; no amount of evidence, logic, or facts will persuade you because you didn’t use those to come to your present position. You’re a Japanese holdout, still flighting the war long after your side lost.

Read the paper. I’m not the unserious one. You will ignore all other information because anti-nuke must be right. You’ve cited Wikipedia, and that’s it. Fuck off dude. You aren’t the one in the right here.

Oh, but it’s regulations, you say. That pesky red tape that I can’t cite even once even though it definitely 100% is because that’s what my feels tell me.

Literally every piece of it increases cost. Do you disagree with that statement? If you do, which red tape has ever decreased cost? Do you think there aren’t regulations on nuclear? I don’t need to cite any specific one because it’s obvious they’re being created and it’s obvious they’d increase cost. Only someone who wants to sea-lion would ask to cite specific regs.

Check out the edit above. I wasn’t fast enough for you apparently, but nuclear can decrease over time. The US is the extreme of costs increasing. Why would this happen if knowledge and technology advances if some external force isn’t acting upon the price?

I like that you keep asking for evidence, I provide it, you cite Wikipedia, then you ignore all other information and act like others are being ignorant. You want anti-nuke to make sense. It does, if you accept that regulations are increasing price and that’s good. It doesn’t if you think artificially increasing the price is bad.

You have answered zero questions and have not responded to any information I’ve provided, yet you act like you’re winning this debate. You look like a fool.

I’ve had very few issues without this, but I’m happy it exists still! Better compatibility shared across different services can only be good.

“We find that trends in costs have varied significantly in magnitude and in structure by era, country, and experience. In contrast to the rapid cost escalation that characterized nuclear construction in the United States, we find evidence of much milder cost escalation in many countries, including absolute cost declines in some countries and specific eras. Our new findings suggest that there is no inherent cost escalation trend associated with nuclear technology.”

As you can see in this chart from the paper, after the Three Mile Island incident, the cost to build a nuclear reactor went up significantly in the US.

Clearly this is due to increased regulations after the anti-nuke movement gained so much influence after Three Mile Island, despite the very minor effects of the event itself.

“When the full cost experience of US nuclear power is shown with construction duration experience, we observe distinctive trends that change after the Three Mile Island accident. As shown in Fig. 3 in blue, reactors that received their operating licenses before the TMI accident experience mild cost escalation. But for reactors that were under construction during Three Mile Island and eventually completed afterwards, shown in red, median costs are 2.8 times higher than pre-TMI costs and median durations are 2.2 times higher than pre-TMI durations. Post-TMI, overnight costs rise with construction duration, even though OCC excludes the costs of interest during construction. This suggests that other duration-related issues such as licensing, regulatory delays, or back-fit requirements are a significant contributor to the rising OCC trend.”

Good enough for you?

You absolutely do if you don’t want anyone capable of rational thought to think you’re full of shit.

No, you do not. I can be assured the sun makes things warmer by showing a graph of temperature based on the position of the sun in the sky. I don’t need to know precisely what fussion reactions are happening in the sun to know the cause. If you aren’t capable of that then that’s on you. No one else needs to know the exact cause to see correlations that point towards the cause.

Edit: Based on history you’re already responding, but I thought I should include the global trend graph from the paper too. In some other nations it’s gotten cheaper over time. The US is by far the worst of making it more expensive over time, despite technology and knowledge advancing.

I recommend going through the study yourself though.

Sea-lioning. Nice. I’m not an expert in the field. I don’t know which regulations do what. I don’t need to prove that to you. The fact that it costs more and takes longer in the US than any other nation, and also that nuclear accidents are extremely rare and safety is high, proves that we have needless regulations. I don’t need to know which ones those are to know that’s true. If you somehow can’t see that without specific regulations being cited, maybe you need to work on your deduction skills.

It was a typo. It was meant to say clean, and it was fixed shortly after posting. The one about regulation does discuss cost.

If you notice on the graph you posted nuclear gets more expensive over time. Why? Everything else gets cheaper over time, until recently where they all increase together. Clearly there’s a temporal link increasing the price of nuclear and it isn’t just expensive always. What has been happening over time to make it more expensive? We pass laws to force it to be unprofitable. It used to be one of the cheapest, and it still is in many places around the world. The US has purposefully made it expensive at the behest of the oil industry.

Edit: I like that you down voted me for disagreeing but also responding with what you wanted. You’re not a very good person are you?

I never claimed it’d be a utopia. Stop being a jackass.

Nuclear is cheapclean and safe:

https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/charted-safest-and-deadliest-energy-sources/

Nuclear waste isn’t an issue:

https://youtu.be/4aUODXeAM-k?si=o6YA2XthpOg6MwV6

https://youtu.be/lhHHbgIy9jU?si=K0Drxo0xxe_Q7gFe

Anti-nuclear groups funded by oil companies:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellynch/2016/07/29/cafe-standards-the-next-big-political-battle-over-energy/?

Regulatory burden dramatically effects nuclear profitability:

https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/putting-nuclear-regulatory-costs-context/

I can get more receipts if you want. Anything you still don’t believe?

You say they’re right, but you didn’t counter any opposition. Great input. You do realize that the anti-nuke movement is largely funded by oil companies, right? If they weren’t a good alternative, why would they need to do this? They would just fail regardless. Instead we’ve passed a ton of laws increasing the cost and time to build a nuclear facility to protect them, and then people like you just repeat that it’s too expensive, or that it’s unsafe despite being essentially tied in safety with solar, and better than everything else.

Technically they have the same minimum wage. If they don’t get back up to minimum wage in tips, the employer is legally required to make up the difference. The issue is most people don’t know this, and so employers get away not doing it. This is one of the many forms of wage theft, the most common form of theft in the US.

It has many times. It’s cheaper in other nations. The only reason it’s so expensive and takes so long to start in the US is because dirty energy companies have gotten laws passed that make it harder “in the name of safety” or whatever they claim. Most anti-nuke groups are funded by oil companies. Nuclear energy is safe, clean, reliable, produces insignificant waste that is easily managed, and provides a baseline power that other clean sources can’t do alone.

Three mile island has operated for decades safely. It closes in 2019 IIRC due to it being unprofitable, because methane was so cheap. Safety isn’t an issue.

Storage of waste is very simple. It requires a very small area, and most of the waste will be neutral in a very short period of time. The stuff that isn’t is still easy to store safely. We have plenty of solutions available for this. It’s also a non-issue.

Regardless, I agree they need to pay for the cost. If the electricity isn’t going to the people then the people shouldn’t be paying for it. Unless M$ is providing the AI garbage free of charge to the public then they get nothing out of it, and even then it would be of debatable utility.

Edit: After reading this, I’m actually not that upset. The company is valued at $80 billion apparently. There’s very little chance they default on the loan. It’s not like they’re getting the money for free. They’re just getting a loan from the Energy Department. Still, if it’s only for private use then the loan should be handled through private entities. They should go take the loan the banks offer. The only reason they’re taking this one instead is because it’s a better deal. They don’t deserve a better deal if it isn’t in the public interest.

I would say most of the writing is bad. There are a handful of interesting quests, but most aren’t. Then there’s things like the generation ship, which they don’t do anything interesting with, it uses the same technology as the modern ships, and also the quest path to end it is stupid. There’s also so many things that just don’t make sense in the universe it’s set in, and it’s overall just boring.

I agree overall the game is just aggressively average though. It plays fine enough, but it gives no reason to want to play it. It’s not actively painful to play, but it gives no feedback to make anything feel worth doing.

I’m pretty sure intent is part of the laws that exist. If you’re just collating information, I don’t think there’s an issue. When you’re posting that information in a forum to identify the person and send people to harass them, that’s where you usually cross a line. It isn’t the gathering of information that’s important. It’s the intent to cause harm.

$70 is going to be the new normal price for AAA. Prices haven’t increased in decades. I don’t like it, but that’s what it is. It’s not AAAA because of the price, nor is that even a thing.

AAA comes from credit rating scores. It essentially means nearly guaranteed returns. It was used to identify games that need to be stocked for game stores. AAA is going to sell. AA is slightly less but still good. Etc. There is not AAAA credit rating. That was just stupid marketing buzzwords that don’t matter.

The engine isn’t why Starfield sucks. Sure, the constant loading isn’t great but it isn’t the reason there’s nothing fun or interesting to do. It’s also a solvable issue, but they haven’t made the investments they need in the engine.

Starfield is just soulless. The characters are boring, the stories aren’t interesting and don’t let the player choose fun options. The universe is static and nothing matters. There’s just no reason to be involved in the world, so there’s no reason to want to be in it.

They could fix this. I’d say the way they need to go to do so is to stop targeting literally every player. They need to figure out who they’re making the game for and target them. I’m a big sci-fi fan, and I like older Bethesda games. I should have been an easy target for Starfield, but I hated it, not because of the engine but because the stories, characters, and universe weren’t engaging. The engine is an easy target to complain about, but it isn’t what’s holding them back. Indie games can do more with worse engines.

No, sadly I think the design is too new. Morrowind was 22 years ago. It is the direction I’d like to see them go again. A complex world that feels lived in, and actually gives players options to play how they want and figure things out for themselves. The newer boring “design for everyone” approach sucks. There’s no soul and nothing interesting.

FromSoft is somewhat notoriously old-school. Their game design has directly evolved from their older games. Look at King’s Field and then look at Dark Souls. There’s so much similarity. Yeah, ER is more cleaned up with a fuck-ton more money and technology available, but it’s essentially the same design.

Obviously Balder’s Gate 3 is just an evolution of classic RPG design, and it did very well. I’d argue CDPR also has taken classic RPG inspiration more than modern ones. A modern RPG design wouldn’t do half the stuff Cyberpunk did, because it’s not targeting everyone (and no one).

Modern AAA design doesn’t pick a target. Their target is everyone and everything, so they do nothing well. Classic design is knowing who your game is for and making a game for them and not anyone else. Bethesda is doing the former.

I was on Windows at the time and had GamePass, so I pleasantly had access included with what I was already paying for. I ended up pirating it so I could mod it (that is prevented on GamePass), because it needed mods.

No, it’s not negative because it’s MS owned. It’s a very bad game. I love older Bethesda games and I love sci-fi. This should have been an easy win for me. Wow, it was disappointing. The actual combat gameplay is fine, but everything between combat sucks. Too many loading screens taking you out of the gameplay.

The writing sucks. They make use of established sci-fi tropes, but then they don’t understand how to make them work in a story. They give you very few choices, often not including the most obvious ones.

Despite this being the “exploration” game, exploration is essentially non-existent. Every planet pretty much has the same stuff. There’s like five bases that spawn everywhere identically, and a handful of “natural” points-of-interest, which appear all over the planet identically, as well as being the same as every other planet with the same ones. You might see some benefit to explore if you’re building bases, but that system is incredibly clunky and frustrating to make operational. Even once you have things running, it’ll still require managing storages from overflowing and blocking incoming supplies. It’s really bad.

The universe is incredibly unreactive too. If you thought this was true for their previous games, it’s worse in Starfield. There’s no ships bringing supplies to colonies. No colonies being built that weren’t there at the start. No fighting between factions, besides pirates randomly and it’s the same random event that happens when you warp into a place, not something that happened because pirates are raiding a supply line or something. It just doesn’t change ever.

Basically, no. Starfield actually sucks. I really wanted to like it, but there’s nothing to like in my opinion. I’ve seen some people say they like it, but I honestly don’t get it. Every aspect seems like a downgrade from FO4, which had its own issues but had reasons to like it too.