• 0 Posts
  • 622 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: October 25th, 2023

help-circle
  • Take the following with a boulder of salt as I haven’t even finished a single campaign yet, but:

    I’ve found it a lot slower than even most of the 4X games I’ve played. It seems much more story- and exploration-focused than Master of Orion or anything like Starcraft; there are a great many cool things to find on the map. Diplomacy is your main path to victory, military conquest seems almost discouraged. To actually conquer worlds you invade, you have to assert a claim beforehand. Simply flooding the system with troops and ships and killing everything that isn’t your empire doesn’t work for some reason.

    It was fine, but I don’t think I really understand it. If you’re after recommendations, though, do you like The Expanse? You might like Starsector, if yes and you haven’t played it.








  • I understand, I was in exactly the same position. Then my battery swelled and wouldn’t hold a charge at all, so I couldn’t restore anything anyway, and my last backup was inaccessible (I know I know, test your backups, but like I started this post with I’m in the same boat of all work and no time for me).

    Losing everything was remarkably freeing. Just switch all your 2FA to Aegis as has been suggested, and save anything you want to back up over the wire, then take the plunge. You won’t lose everything like I had to, and you won’t regret the switch 😊








  • I mean, it’s a little more than that, but only a little. There’s a literal meter in your screenshot of how left or right the source is. “Credibility rating” requires us to trust MediaBiasFactCheck’s credibility rating system, which I don’t know enough about at the moment and so default to not trusting it.

    That’s why I say calling out the problematic structures would be more helpful - people could see it for themselves, right there in the article text, and then maybe also identify then without help later. This would foster healthier discussion than an echo chamber where people ignore a source based on its biases.

    Of course some sources would be more note than content, but then some sources have argued in court they’re not really news.


  • Along with others in this thread, I don’t think this feature would foster a healthy community - it would foster an echo chamber. I would rather see an analysis of the language of the article pointing out any logical fallacies used, weasel words, etc. than a “left-o-meter”. I have my own one of those based on my actual beliefs, not what someone decides my beliefs have to be to fit into the blue box.





  • Rule 1, about this being an English-language community?

    I’m guessing you meant about arguing in good faith, maybe. I am, though. Personally, if Russian media or the Kremlin make a statement, I assume it is a lie. This is a good assumption to make, not because they always lie, but because they’ve given me every reason to distrust them. I’m basically reminding everyone that state and it’s official media are the child that cried wolf.

    If that guy gets on American or European media and states he had weed gummies because he made a bad decision it forgot he had them or whatever, then I will believe it. Until then, I know Russia has/can/will simply abduct foreign nationals in order to attempt to strongarm the governments of those detained, and that is my default belief in each case until proven otherwise.