It’s possible, but I think it’s more likely that the senile old man screamed at them to do it and they said “Yes sir” because it’s easier than telling the diaper shitting toddler he can’t have his bottle. They’ll have thrown together some kind of incredibly flimsy justification under one of the existing - but largely inapplicable - legal avenues knowing full well that it’ll fail in court but also that that’s tomorrow’s problem and hopefully by the time it does the old fart will have forgotten what he was mad about.

This is basically how most of “Trump does X” goes when you get down to it. The stuff that actually sticks is the big projects that he rubber stamps on behalf of his coterie of Wormtongues, while his own impulsive demands largely get implemented haphazardly and with little thought because no one besides grandpa actually cares.

This article is seriously underselling the problem.

Yes, all of this is accurate, and its good data for people fighting back against data centres. They produce shockingly few jobs, and the most highly paid of those will likely be experts moved in from elsewhere.

But there’s a far bigger problem; AI data centres have no path to profitability. The cost of GPUs is so astronomically high and the depreciation so insanely fast that even if 3,000 - 4,000 data centres worth of AI compute demand materializes (it won’t; companies like Meta are already selling their own unused compute because demand is so weak), they still won’t be profitable, ever.

The article talks about how the permanent employment offered - on paper - is in the tens to low hundreds and that’s true, but the real employment is mostly going to be zero. In five years time 99% of these projects will be abandoned before completion, or turned into skate parks.

1. Doubt

Correct. My immediate thought here is “Under what law?”

They’ve already gone through this. Trump’s initial gambit, the IEEPA, got comprehensively struck down. That leaves him with two options; a law that was intended to address balance of payments issues (very likely to get stuck down in its own ongoing legal trials because, tldr, balance of payments issues haven’t existed since they moved to fiat currency), which can only be used to impose tariffs of up to 15%, or a law that can be used to apply sector specific tariffs but only after an extensive investigation. That means they actually have to be able to justify, in court (because they will get sued by all the US buyers affected by these tariffs) the actual economic impact that is being mitigated.

The former is a non-starter - capped at 15%, has to be applied globally, not to one specific country, and based on super shakey legal grounds, and the latter will collapse the moment they’re asked to show their work.

Thank you for being one of the blindingly small number of Americans to recognize this.

You’re absolutely correct. These performative “Please tell me I’m a good person” apologies ring hollow. It’s just #notallmen all over again.

I’m sure OP is a lovely person. But we don’t want to hear it. We are not Catholic priests waiting to absolve left-wing Americans of their sins, and quite frankly, we’re too busy shovelling our way out of all your shit to give a damn if any of you are good people or not.

Out of curiosity, why develop your own instead of contributing to RenPy? Not saying there can’t be good reasons, just curious what they are in this case.

Except the actual MMO depicted in SAO fucking sucks. Like, once you remove the whole “Oh my God it’s like I’m really there” hyper-advanced simsense VR aspect, it’s a really shitty game. The only possible builds are DPS and Tank, there’s no magic, no ranged, nothing to make stealth viable. You can go into crafting but that’s about it for any other skills. The whole “unique skill” mechanic is basically just pure “Fuck you” RNG and would be impossible to balance. Loot gets handed out based on last hits so fuck cooperation. It’s a mess. If you made an MMO with modern tech that perfectly recreated the mechanics of SAO, no one would play it.

The issue is that everyone thinks computers operate on magic, so they just ignore the idea that there might be practical limitations on doing the things that they want to do.

In reality there is no means of age verification that isn’t also a form of identity verification. And if you asked people “Should everyone have to hand over their government ID to private companies in order to use the internet”, you’d see much lower numbers of positive responses.

Imperialist TR scum in my comments section?! The Vanu will see an end to your reign of terror, just you wait!

Best would have to be PlanetSide 2. It’s not the most hours I’ve put into a game, but it’s up there, and now importantly it’s the game that I most fondly remember my time playing. For a few years I ran ops with one of the oldest outfits in the game, and I still find myself remembering moments from those nights. It was a really cool community (maybe not as a whole, but certainly the people I was hanging out with) and we got up to a lot of really fun shit. I put maybe $100-200 into that game and got out experiences that genuinely changed me as a person.

Least would be Squad. I’ve never been able to make that game click. It’s not like I don’t play similar games, I’ve really enjoyed my time with Hell Let Loose, and Insurgency would be a very strong contender for my most bang for buck. Squad just… Doesn’t work for me. And I don’t really know why.

The game is really good. Combat is a lot of fun, the skill tree is enormous, the magic is cool, I like the weird rat guy, and it’s neat to be playing a dwarf in a first person fantasy game. And yeah, the graphics are insane. I was constantly stopping to just stare at the view in awe.

When I picked it up there were only a few hours worth of content. I uninstalled it knowing that I was very, very excited to play more, and resolved to leave it until it’s officially out of early access. It’s a little present to future me.

This does make the question of whether it’s worth the price a weird one. Technically, the answer would be a no; if development stopped tomorrow and all you got was the game as it exists today, it wouldn’t be worth it.

But if the finished product remotely delivers on the quality of what they’ve made so far, it will be a steal at $40 or even $50. I honestly think you’d be crazy not to throw the developers ten bucks now for the promise of a game this good. Unless something goes horribly wrong I think it’ll be a very safe bet.

Modern routers have a feature that’s typically known as “hairpin NAT” or “NAT loopback”. This means that if the DNS lookup resolves to the router’s public IP, it routes the packet internally instead of passing it out to the internet. So for your subdomains all of the traffic should stay local. Typically this feature is enabled by default, but you may want to check just to be sure.

Roadblock my beloved.

Let’s see how many people know about Bloodthief.

Insanely unique concept. You gather blood and use it to fuel hyper fast parkour movement and combat. Everything is a one hit kill, everything is insanely slick. It feels really good to play, and I don’t even normally like this style of game.

The laws of gravity do not exist to deny you your right to fly.

Reality is. It does not care about your feelings on the matter.

Is it good someone stopped the Nazis from genocide? Yes.

There we go. End of discussion.

I’m not here to debate the idea that wars are bad, or that they happen for complex, often highly immoral reasons. I never staked out any of those positions. In fact I literally said previously “There is no such thing as a perfectly moral war.”

But none of that changes the fact that, like it or not, militaries are necessary. They’re necessary because wars get started for immoral reasons. Because we can’t wish ourselves into a world where autocrats and fascists and nationalists and revanchists don’t exist. We can work to build that world, and we should. But it will take time, and we do not get the luxury of living without any means of stopping those people in the meantime.

You can’t be a progressive nation if you’re not a nation at all.

Did armed resistance to the Nazis from state military start because of the genocide? No.

OK. But that’s not what I asked, is it?

The question is simple; would the world be better off if no one had engaged in armed resistance to the Nazis. Why they did it - the exact specifics of a complex sea of motivations - is beside the point.

Arguing that we should just not have a military is arguing that the world should have just let the Nazis take over. It’s that simple. It’s not about good and bad, it’s about what’s necessary. Reality does not care about your moral purity.

This is just whataboutism. You’re not actually making a point, just deflecting.

I would actually 100% support a UN peacekeeping mission in Gaza. I think that the people of Palestine should be defended from Isreal’s genocide, and if it takes tanks and guns to do that, I believe that’s what we should do.

Doesn’t mean I like it. The world I want is one where Isreal isn’t engaged in a genocide in the first place. But that’s not the world we have. You’re not making anyone’s life better by sticking your head in the sand.

In your other reply you suggested that I should just refuse to eat and simply die because I want capitalism to end. Who does that help? That’s a serious question, and I actually want you to answer it; if I kill myself rather than engage with capitalism, what have I done to bring about its end? Whose life have I improved?

I think it’s also important to note here that the previous poster is creating an unrealistic standard by insisting that genocide even be in the picture.

Any war of aggression is a bad thing that people should be able to defend themselves from. And that means having a military. And defending other people from wars of aggression means having a military.

We don’t have to be talking about genocide. Whether or not Russia is committing genocide in Ukraine (they are certainly engaged in ethnic cleansing, regardless of any other definitions) is actually irrelevant. The people of Ukraine should not have their future determined by the fact that Putin has men with guns and the willingness to use them. It’s as simple as that. And as long as people like Putin exist in the world, having a military will often be the only way to prevent stuff like that from happening.

scroll down from there to Military

So it is a military then?

You work to change the reality, but you still live in the reality you have now.

I want to end capitalism, but I still buy food and pay rent, because I currently live in capitalism. You don’t get to opt out of reality.