like who in their right mind would want to actually do either of those things?
Me, for starters, and many other people. Previous poster was just talking about how it’s better to be able to actually walk between towns (even if distances are unrealistic), instead of being forced to fast travel because it’s much more interesting and immersive, not sure how did you miss this point
Problem is “why now”, but also comparison to username field is not really valid - username is actually useful, what’s the point of birth date apart from age verification? You need some kind of username to converse to fellow engineers, birth date is completely unnecessary for that
You are just privileged idealist disappointed in your own system so you try to latch on something completely opposite in order to belong somewhere. I have experienced living under one of those systems and fleeing it to one of the “West Bad!” countries. I am both envious that you didn’t have to go through this and pitying you that eventually you will be disappointed in your new “Good Country” choice
Polls in authoritarian countries are notoriously more positive about own countries than in democratic ones due to insane amount of propaganda (yes, even compared to US). In which next country do we di polls next - Russia or North Korea?
Not sure about OP, but I think that yes, end goal should be banning alcohol consumption completely.
It’s more nuanced that that - he definitely doesn’t want USSR back in terms of economical or political system as is, but he does want to bring back USSR in the name (to get legacy and accomplishments association) and get the same consolidated power to build the totalitarian oligarchy somewhat similar to USSR, but without some checks and balances that were still present even in USSR
I believe Singapore is liberal authoritarian, many of the original policies are progressive even to this day
Valve also said they are not willing to sell hardware at a loss so there is that
If you pay attention to what Russia does internally and externally, Russia fulfills every one of those requirements except the last one (because they can’t, but they would be very happy too)
Honestly can’t tell if it’s satire
Yeah I feel that Finals at least has a bit of style in it - basically a dystopian corporate unserious “we are quirky” “please the rich overlords” vibe
Which sounds annoying af considering that it’s a reflection of a real world but actually works pretty well for some reason
Also cosmetics are legitimately good - finger akimbo guns, stick revolver and bao buns grenade launcher are hilarious
I do think it’s one of the reasons why game is almost dead though - style is pretty bland on the surface which is why I skipped it initially until I tried to actually play it and was hooked
That’s an interesting topic btw - what is the way for any dictatorship to work well for everyone’s benefit in theory? If it’s dictatorship of the wise, would smartest people get put into place with absolute power? Is it an expectation that people currently in power pass power voluntarily to wiser people? Would there be a framework that determines wisest people and it would be decided upon by the popular consensus? Isn’t it technically still a democracy if people trust in the framework/system that governs how smartest people are decided upon?
You are conflating two different problems here imo - Choosing one but not (mostly equally harmful) another thing to restrict, and government banning something as a way of restricting freedom Regarding first one - I don’t are a problem here, everything else can be addressed after this one, but even if it’s not, it’s still a net positive, I don’t understand your argument here naming this policy bad because it doesn’t do all or nothing Regarding ban as a restriction of freedom - banning something just lies on the far scale of taxing something - i.e. the more you tax something, the less people can afford it (tax is always passed onto consumer), so at some point only rich people can afford to smoke which is even worse than ban imo There’s a benefit in additional money from taxes, sure, but tobacco is already taxed quite a lot so this is nothing revolutionary, and the more taxes on something the less revenue from it at some point (considering that less and less people can afford it) Banning it from the certain age and not for everyone is obviously to not make existing smokers suffer and make younger population healthier Some things just should be banned, like murder for example, when there’s no benefit from that thing to anyone at all You would agree that products with lead or coke in in should stay banned and not be sold, right?