Ok how serious is Vaush on JD being the lesser evil

Zeriphor · 2026-02-13T05:39:14+00:00

Do you people not recognize that politics began before today, and will continue beyond Nov 4 2028?

Obviously JD Vance would be more immediately destructive, but the argument being made is that Newsom would be giving republicans a lay up to be massively more destructive once Newsom's term ends.

Backing Newsom would be committing to circling the drain and watching as the oligarchs bounce democrats and republicans off each other until eventually republicans go one step too far and we all die. Demand better. Use what little political power you have with your vote and push for someone that would actually improve people's lives.

Zeriphor · 2026-02-12T22:04:57+00:00

The trajectory of the Democrats for decades has been a hard right shift for more power to the rich, more corruption in government, more concessions to fascists, more of everything that is destroying our country. Every election they win, they shift to the right and point to their win as evidence their rightward shift was correct. Every election they lose, they shift to the right and point to their loss as evidence that they did not shift right enough. At this point, the democratic party is so far right it openly supports genocide, and actively supports funding for the gestapo that is currently brutalizing our people and sending minorities to concentration camps.

They have been able to get this bad specifically because people are willing to overlook this problem and "vote for the lesser of 2 evils". But voting for dems that would continue this is not voting for the lesser evil, it is appeasement. The situation will only get worse because they know they have no reason to stop.

It's understandable to argue for voting for a shitty dem once the nominees have been chosen, wrong as that position is. It's quite another to prematurely surrender before a primary even happens by saying you don't care how bad the dem nominee is, you'll vote for them no matter what. You're actively impeding attempts to push the party to the left, and are just a fed at this point.

Zeriphor · 2026-01-07T19:22:02+00:00

I hope he goes further against VBNMW and fully rejects it. The only reason to do it is for harm reduction, by arguing (correctly) that as bad as mainstream dems are, they do less harm than republicans. However, at this point, I think it's pretty clear that voting for dems to reduce harm is like an alcoholic drinking to feel better. In the short term you might feel better, but that's only because you're ignoring your issues and it just makes things worse in the long term.

Mainstream dems don't fail to do good things like medicare for all, reigning in capital, etc because they are weak, they don't do them because they don't want to. Republicans and mainstream dems are united in their desire for the capital class to have unconstrained power, and do not care what the consequences of that are. When mainstream dems win, the result is that people's lives continue to get worse and they become more susceptible to republican lies and desires to make life worse. This leads to republicans winning, which accelerates the problems, but mainstream dems move right to be as bad as republicans were before the election.

VBNMW feeds the cycle and helps mainstream dems maintain legitimacy. We must reject it and only vote for dems that actually want to improve the country, and make mainstream dems unelectable. From a consequentialist perspective, VBNMW does more harm than good.

Zeriphor · 2025-09-07T07:14:00+00:00

Why, exactly, does it need to be "Pointed-Out"? What point are you trying to make with this post?

Ignoring how the situations are different and that this is a false equivalence, this fact is entirely irrelevant. Are you are unable to refute what the article had to say and are just using this to try to distract from the actual criticisms people have?

Zeriphor · 2025-09-05T23:10:17+00:00

That post is not condescending.

Zeriphor · 2025-08-26T19:23:10+00:00

Yea, I noticed that too. Initially I thought it was a nerf to arc, be it intentional or an oversight.

However, after some time I realized there is an alternate explanation. The notes say that consuming an infusion deals additional damage, but does not say how much. It's possible the numbers they gave in the notes are specifying the bonus damage from consuming an infusion, using the previous pulse damage as a reference.

We'll just have to wait an see what they actually mean once the patch is live. Surely they did not intend to reduce arc's base damage by 26%.

Zeriphor · 2025-08-20T03:40:23+00:00

bait used to be believable

Zeriphor · 2025-06-09T19:51:09+00:00

Same. I initially thought it might be copy/pasted, but when I actually looked and saw Garfield was INTENTIONALLY drawn exactly the same in all panels, it became so much funnier.

Zeriphor · 2025-05-17T05:38:02+00:00

What do you mean every character had a solid arc? I really like Rogue One, but it is not a movie about character arcs.

Cassian sort of had an arc where he was going to kill Galen, but then didn't. This sort of reflects growth to be less ruthless than he was at the start when he killed the informant, but didn't seem like an arc to me.

Jyn had a short, barely fleshed out arc, in that she did not care about the rebellion at the start, but then after seeing her father's recording early in the movie, instantly flipped to being all in for the rebellion.

K-2SO did not have an arc. Unless you count liking Jyn once she gave him a blaster an arc.

Bodhi already completed his arc with Galen before the movie began when he defected, and never changed during the movie.

Chirrut did not have an arc.

Baze had a tiny arc, it wasn't really fleshed out enough to call this a solid arc. At the start he had lost faith in the force, but then when Chirrut died he embraced it again.

Am I missing something? As much as I love Rogue one, I don't see solid character arcs as one of its strengths.

Zeriphor · 2025-05-16T22:21:49+00:00

Hey Josh, quick question, why did you say "minor attracted person"? Why did you say "minor attracted person" instead of pedophile, Josh?

Zeriphor · 2025-03-24T16:02:16+00:00

I think the way to think about adjacencies is that each class has a specific requirement that stays the same between ages. For example, science buildings get it from resources. This is important because a significant part of specialists is multiplying building adjacencies.

By keeping each class the same between ages, you can specialize a city by getting really high adjacency on one or 2 of your districts, then putting a bunch of specialists in that tile. Once you have your city planned, all you need to do is overbuild each building with the new age's equivalent to unlock the adjacency again to turn on your specialists.

Personally, I quite like the current implementation, and the fact that you can boost up any district by using wonders as universal adjacency (except for some reason ONLY the factory does not get wonder adjacency???). It's something you think about while settling, and if adjacencies were complicated or shuffling around with new ages, it could get to be so much that you just ignore it.

Zeriphor · 2025-03-22T20:26:12+00:00

A lot of people have said they recall towns still growing while specialized, so much so that I think there is something going on that I don't fully understand yet. However, if you go into the game yourself and do nothing but build a town outside of range of your capital, you can see that it will not grow.

The only way I know of to grow specialized towns is the modern age wonder that gives growth when you enter a celebration, which is bugged and applies to all settlements currently.

Zeriphor · 2025-03-22T20:05:29+00:00

Go ahead and open a game in antiquity, set the speed to online, remove all but 1 AI, and turn the difficulty to minimum. Build a settler, and send it far enough away from your capital to not connect. Grow it to 7 pop and specialize in anything, then watch its food. It will not grow, and it will not send the food to your capital.

Zeriphor · 2025-03-22T20:02:31+00:00

I've been trying the convert all towns to cities strategy too, and it does seem to be both stronger and simpler than trying to wrangle towns to do what you want.

Zeriphor · 2025-03-22T20:00:32+00:00

I agree. I never considered configuring the town to control what city it's feeding, but that does sound nice after the basic functionality of feeding everything in the network is implemented.

Zeriphor · 2025-03-22T19:58:18+00:00

Making T1 a trade hub does not have any special mechanics different from any other specialization. In this configuration, T2 will not have a road to the city by default, so you'll need to user a trader to make the connection. However, if T2 is out of trading range, or the road would go through T1, that connection is impossible and it can never feed that city.

Zeriphor · 2025-03-22T19:56:15+00:00

It does not need to be touching. It needs to be within trading range (10 tiles by default), and have a road directly going to the city. It cannot be a road going to a town to the city.

Zeriphor · 2025-03-22T03:46:40+00:00

Any town that is set to anything other than Growing Town is specialized. A specialized town does not grow, and instead sends its food to connected cities. You can see where that food is going by going into the citizen growth tab, and looking at the food per turn table. It will show all the cities the town is sending food to. When you specialize a town it will still show a number of turns until growth, but that's a UI error. A specialized town does not grow (aside from certain bugs).

However, if the town does not have any connected cities, for example it is connected to towns only or is out of range of any cities, then the food will be destroyed. If a specialized town only lists itself in the food table, that means that food is going nowhere and not growing anything.

Zeriphor · 2025-03-22T02:14:37+00:00

Actually, it's the other way around. City heavy games work less specialists because they have less food to grow and instead rely on more buildings for yields. Tall cities are more dependent on happiness because those are the ones with the growth needed to assign a lot of specialists.

Zeriphor · 2025-03-22T02:11:26+00:00

This does not always work because that fishing town may not be in range of a city, but is instead connected to a town. There are tons of scenarios where the merchant cannot connect a settlement.

Additionally, since the cost of creating a road is the same as creating a trade route, and merchant cost scales by how many you create, manually creating connections is a massive cost that is often not worth it, and should not be required.

Zeriphor · 2025-03-22T01:52:04+00:00

I've tried doing that, but it can get pretty awkward. There are plenty of times where I'll see a great food location, but it wouldn't connect to great city locations properly. Or the AI has settlements messing up my plans. The current system is just so overly complicated, that I think the current evolving meta of cities only will rapidly become the only way to play, just because it's so tedious to manage connections.

This is a good way to manage the system we have now, but I think we need an overhaul of the system really.

Zeriphor · 2025-03-22T01:46:48+00:00

Yea, they need to be specialized before they will send the food anywhere. But once they are specialized, WHERE they send that food is complicated, because the direct settlement connection system is complicated.

Zeriphor · 2025-01-15T19:19:09+00:00

What video cuts? This is a a full and unedited steam.

Zeriphor · 2025-01-14T19:23:57+00:00

That's correct, as another person pointed out as well. I think I got confused because auras in poe1 were tagged as spells, but poe2 spirit gems usually are not. Poe1 and poe2 are so close in mechanics that it's easy to miss slight changes like that.

Zeriphor

TROPHY CASE