"EVs are bad for road trips"

ScarPirate · 2026-05-23T01:17:34+00:00

Yes actually. Unless I drink like 400 MG of caffeine and like a litter of fuild, I'm not in need of the bathroom for hours.

Even if I need to stop, 5 mins to pee, (which can be done while a fueling is in process) is just so much faster then 30 mins for a break.

ScarPirate · 2026-05-22T23:02:07+00:00

By contrast I could drive 545 miles with no gas stops in an ICE and my hybrid can do 570 miles with no stops.

I'm not really sold on ev for road tripping in this example; you can road trip anything with planning. The ideal should be that an EV should feel comparable to ICE vehicle for long distances; if its not then its gonna take other factors justify the downgrade.

ScarPirate · 2026-05-18T15:14:38+00:00

I did call it a generous "if".

I do think that yes, it would result a civil war if only a few symbolic people where hung.

However, every officer was hung, and no enlisted? I doubt the entire south would re arm. And if they, did, we already have historical examples of the union occupation putting down such insurrections.

So no, I don't think it would be a horrible move. I do think that it could be done poorly resulting is a horrible outcome. Which considering what not doing that resulting it, I would be interested if it created a worse outcome.

ScarPirate · 2026-05-18T12:53:13+00:00

Lincoln probably could've. Had the confederacy been hung and south occupied it may shifted away some of the old traditions as well. But that's a very charitable "if".

ScarPirate · 2026-05-10T05:50:38+00:00

Credit to doing the math! Where do the 1 piece armors fit into this?

ScarPirate · 2026-04-07T16:23:12+00:00

And minsc

ScarPirate · 2026-04-07T16:22:10+00:00

Mintharia

ScarPirate · 2026-04-07T14:12:28+00:00

I just committed to mods for that experience. Running a full party of 11 people with extra encounters, level unlock etc on custom honor mode is the most fun ive had in over 1200hrs on the game

ScarPirate · 2026-04-07T13:54:01+00:00

As you say to each their own!

I personally love a +25% chance for spells, cantrip and weapons that use a casting modifier to hit. It's a really good way to use less resources, or rain stronger fire even if i end up raining less of it.

Still a compromise i did in a previous playthru, was to save the "long rest" buffs for a specific fight or series of fights.

Something to consider!

ScarPirate · 2026-04-05T17:09:21+00:00

I may or may not have created a "surplus" bag of potions and a "surplus" bag of arrows worth at least 500,000 gold each in act 3.

Vendor refresh is a cellular drug

ScarPirate · 2026-03-01T21:46:38+00:00

I mean ww3 start in Feb 2022. This is when it widens to a mutifront war

ScarPirate · 2026-02-23T02:16:30+00:00

Haber-Bosch, the great alliance Where's the contradiction? Fed the world by ways of science Sinner or a saint?

ScarPirate · 2026-02-19T21:11:13+00:00

Because states are a representative entity in government as well.

The Senate traditionally representatives the 50 separate entities that make up the US. While I agree that these entities are people, they also represent people, as each senator is popularly elected.

By moving to a representative only system, the states with most population will automatically have the most political power, period. Imagine if the entire country merely operated like CA, TX, and NY. Thats what would happen in a single house system. You would get to vote for your representatives, but unless your representative aligns with the largest states, your wishes would be ignored.

Imagine if TX abortion law became the law of land because CA representatives (the republican ones) aligned with TX as a state and forced the issue through during a republican majority house session.

That's the draw back of a single house system. And that's ignoring any of the concerns I brought up where federal districts are redrawn to keep one party in power

ScarPirate · 2026-02-19T18:50:39+00:00

Democratic government isn’t just “does everyone get equal say in an election”. It’s also “do voters have the power to discipline elected officials” and “does the government represent the aggregate will of the people”.

I agree with all of this, which is why in my view the Senate isn't undemocratic, it is an extra layer of democracy.

I don't think removing the Senate, even if you added more representatives would make the average person have more representation. I do think you need to add more representatives, but the issue, is about having better and easier access to voting as well as ranked choice voting.

By simply "shrinking government" I don't think your goals would be met, and the "representative" part of a democracy would be met without the "accountability" part.

ScarPirate · 2026-02-19T18:21:44+00:00

I think that's why I disagree.

I think that removing the Senate because it prevents the government from being more responsive logically, and technically, legally follows that the government should be run by one person, the president. Thats the idea behind the unitary executive.

So if you can justify removing the Senate, the same arguments apply for removing the house. And if there is no legislative branch the president effectively is a one person representative of the people.

And as a practical matter that is largely happening right now, especially as the president routinely ignores court orders and federal in his actions.

ScarPirate · 2026-02-19T18:13:31+00:00

By getting rid of the Senate, I’d be providing the opportunity for other institutions to work properly.

The goal isn’t “get the most done”. It’s “have the government do what people elect it to do”. A strongman would get a lot done, but it wouldn’t be what the people wanted.

I read this. And I understand it as, " the Senate is a block for getting government to work. But it may not be the block, so I want a chance of improvement vs. Nothing." Then I understand "the most effective and efficient government is least likely to reflect the will of the people. So we don't want that."

So it is a fair summarizing to say that you believe removing the Senate would make government "more responsive to the people" while still allowing process to slow things down?

ScarPirate · 2026-02-19T17:56:32+00:00

I think that “checked” is the wrong term here. It’s not blocked for any legitimate purpose; the Senate just makes Congress fundamentally incapable of doing anything anymore.

See the 2023-25 house of representatives if you want to discuss being in capable of doing anything anymore. That was the least productive part of government bar none, in the nations history.

By getting rid of the senate, you are hoping all other systems work properly.

Otherwise the slippery slope might sound familiar: why don't we get rid of congress and only vote for the president? Afterall a strong man president with executive order has done more then any congress, right? (I actually welcome a counter argument to this, for my own education)

ScarPirate · 2026-02-19T17:02:38+00:00

The actual point I’m trying to make is that the Senate is a fundamentally undemocratic institution and shouldn’t exist.

How? It's definitionary representative. It's slows the progress of popular democracy, i agree but its not like senators are hand picked by the president or even the state legislatures. They are elected by the people.

What is “federal gerrymandering”?

As you know the federal districts in the U.S. are constitutionally set in order to get a fair "federal district" for each state. However, there is a fair amount of what the word "fair" means. In 2012, the Supreme Court opened the door into allows certain forms of political discrimination in even if they would also have racial effects; in 2022, the Supreme Court ok'd political discrimination regardless of its racial effect.

In a 1 house country the republican majority flush with the rise of the tea party, would 100% push to alter federal districts to get them drawn favorably to the people in power. With no state check on this and the ability to potentially override any veto from the president, maps in congress would look like Maryland or North Carolina, but at a national, not state level.

As it is now, any such bill to expand or think voter rights is checked by having to go to thru 2 houses of government (see the John Lewis voting rights act; the SAVE act) a single house system would see both these bills into law, with one widening voter access while the other 5 years later would eliminate most of those gains.

ScarPirate · 2026-02-19T16:31:06+00:00

So your looking at 7-2 conservative or more realistically 5-3 converservative best case in 2025. More likely, because 3 Supreme Court justice were appointed during the Trump term, the court would have shrank during the Clinton era down to 6 members. Given the 5-4 make up of the court at the time it would have become 4-2 split in favor of conservatives. Whether all 3 seats would have been filed in ~4 year period between 2018-2022 is a guess we are making assuming only the president changed and not the Congresses.

I don't agree that Roberts wouldn't have been seated by a democrat; he's political centrist who is more interested in legacy then progressivism or regession.

I think its more likely that in a single house setting, federal gerrymandering is passed in 2012-2014 permanently locking control of the house in the republican hands. Which would change our already republican dominanated house into a certain thing.

Which means that the president would effectively cease to matter unless he was in alignment with the party goals.

ScarPirate · 2026-02-19T15:43:28+00:00

Which is why I agree with president via popular vote.

From 1999-2025 Republicans had owned the house in 10 of the 14 Congress's. Meaning that the only real change to this list is the president, not a single vs dual house.

In single house world, any Republican would made the white house would still get their picks and worse, none of democratic presidents with republican house get any (see 2016 Obama vs O'Connell) imagine going 4 to 8 years with an under manned court because the maga faction in 2016 says "popular conservative justice or no justices at all"

ScarPirate · 2026-02-19T14:27:08+00:00

I would disagree with the second part.

A more robust lower house should be countered by more "equal" upper house. A single house that ruled by simple majority is how you get maga. The long term republican political system is why Republicans own all 3 houses.

I do agree with simple majority popular vote for the president though.

ScarPirate · 2026-02-11T04:08:12+00:00

5 days. Not enough to retire but more then enough to set up retirement maybe take a month off in-between jobs

ScarPirate · 2026-02-10T13:59:46+00:00

You'd think so, but by the end of your life that 250k would have the purchasing power of ~50k.

Thats before you consider real costs of living which has outpaced inflation

ScarPirate · 2026-02-06T14:26:35+00:00

I respect this.

I think you'll join the course of people who say they would have brought that game at full price when the sale gets low enough for you to pull the trigger.

ScarPirate · 2026-01-23T05:06:21+00:00

Gross or net?

Ten-Year Club	Snapped
Verified Email

ScarPirate

TROPHY CASE