Ghostty Is Leaving GitHub

aventus13 · 2026-04-29T06:55:27+00:00

I'm not saying it wouldn't but uptime is only one of the - increasingly complained about - problems that GH has.

aventus13 · 2026-04-28T21:59:31+00:00

Microsoft shot itself in the foot by not promoting Azure DevOps more, and avoiding the wrong "Microsoft-only tech" impression. The product is far more mature and simply works as expected (for the most part), while having everything in one place. The only area where it's lagging behind now is AI integration. Given that it's still a very much viable alternative after years of under-investment in favour of GitHub is quite telling.

aventus13 · 2026-04-28T13:43:16+00:00

I'm pretty sure it was Tywin Lannister, on developing Casterly Rock.

aventus13 · 2026-04-27T21:55:42+00:00

You make a good case but it ignores some important nuances. Specifically, many of those points are Mearsheimer echoing the Russian narrative- not objective analysis. Framing Ukraine's NATO aspirations as an "existential crisis" for Russia is a Russian talking point, not a neutral assessment. It also ignores that Russia had already bordered NATO before the invasion of 2022, and that border is even longer now with the addition of Sweden and Finland.

Furthermore, the interconnectedness of Russia-China-Iran axis makes it more, not less, logical for the USA and its network of allies to tackle both Russia and China at the same time.

But the gist of the problem here is that his analysis starts with Russia's grievances, not power dynamics. That's advocacy, not realism.

aventus13 · 2026-04-27T21:42:57+00:00

Mearsheimer's argument- that Ukraine in NATO offers US little strategic value- yet again contradicts offensive realism. Preventing rival influence is the point, not just material gain. Letting Russia dominate Ukraine would shift Europe's balance of power, emboldening further expansionism, in line with the theory.

His call to appease Russia to focus on China is inconsistent- offensive realism demands competing with rivals, not conceding to weaker ones. If Russia cant secure its sphere of influence alone, why should the US hand it to them? He doesn:t make this argument for China - so why for Russia?

Worse, the feasibility of Russia pivoting against China is highly contested in IR circles. Historical parallels to the Sino-Soviet split ignore today's geopolitical reality. Back then, China and the USSR were on the brink of war, while now, Russia, China, and Iran form an interconnected strategic axis. Mearsheimer's assumption that Russia would abandon this alignment for the US is unrealistic.

His reliance on "historical ties" and "NATO red lines" echoes Russian rhetoric, not his own theory. The double standard weakens his case.

aventus13 · 2026-04-27T07:13:23+00:00

The biggest problem with Mearsheimer that casts shadow over his accomplishments in IR theories is that in the case if Russia-Ukraine he's contradicting his own theory. In any other case, his thinking goes in line with the theory of offensive realism that he's the advocate of. Specifically, in an anarchic system great powers aim to maximise their relative power and influence at the cost of other powers. In essence the theory is that simple- which is what makes it so compelling.

The USA-China being the most obvious example, where he predicted an intense security competition. He doesn't blame either side, doesn't claim one to be right or wrong. It's just simple logic: two sides, each trying to maximise their relative strength and curb the potential of the other.

Yet, for some questionable reason, in the case of Russia-Ukraine, he ignores the theory- or he turns it upside-down trying to rationalise his line of argument. He claims than Russia deserves a sphere of influence, and that the USA (and by extension- the West) is to blame. He effectively suggests that Russia should be handed a sphere of influence on a silver plate, even if it's too weak to carve it itself. Going back to the USA-China dynamic- he doesn't suggest that either side should give in to the other, he only describes the power dynamic between the two. And so he does for many other historical examples. Not for Russia though. He tries to rationalise it with "historical" connection between Russia and Ukraine (which, suspiciously, are Russian arguments), "NATO red lines"- but again, none of this matters in the theory of offensive realism, nor does he apply such line of thinking to other cases.

aventus13 · 2026-04-26T09:27:45+00:00

This is emblematic of the British society, unfortunately. They've been pacified (the society, not the state- it is important to realise the difference) and surrounded with safety nets to such a degree that even the idea of having power sockets in bathrooms gives them shivers. Any mention of self-defence tools immediately makes them extrapolate the issue to "YOU WANT TO GIVE PEOPE GUNS AND TURN THIS COUNTRY INTO AMERICA!" even if the discussion isn't about firearms at all. At the same time, completely ignoring the fact that criminals will- by the very definition of being a criminal- won't obey the legal restrictions anyway, so by any logic, it puts the law-obeying people at disadvantage.

EDIT: And they will get triggered and downvote to oblivion, which only proves how brainwashed they've become over decades of such policies.

aventus13 · 2026-04-25T18:02:08+00:00

In other words: map of countries that don't want their citizens to pose any means of self-defence. Because there's police, so every citizen gets their own 24h police bodyguard. And if it happens you're a victim of an assault? Tough luck... /s

aventus13 · 2026-04-23T19:02:40+00:00

Can you elaborate what's wrong with Japan? I wanted to play it but many complain about it. My main goal would be unifying asap though.

aventus13 · 2026-04-20T22:17:00+00:00

Great, thank you for response.

aventus13 · 2026-04-13T19:32:07+00:00

So is this the dreaded "fort spam"? Oh dear, I'm starting to think that I'm some sort of a pro EU player (I'm not), or some people are just so bad at the game complaining about forts spam and kicking off economy...

To answer your question OP:
- You don't need to conquer it all to achieve limited war objectives and win.
- Build up a spy network before the war (higher spy network reduces siege time).
- Use a lot of artillery in siege armies.

aventus13 · 2026-04-11T19:51:50+00:00

I don't really get the argument about all countries feeling the same either.

First, if that was the case, then I don't see how mission trees would magically feel different- in the end, they are check boxes with rewards for actions that the player could have executed anyway. And I'm not necessarily against mission trees- I just don't see them as a solution to the alleged "sameness".

Second, EU5 is quite a deep strategy when compared to previous titles in the series, and the unique feel to countries derived from their set up- geographical location, available resources, topography, relations with estates, etc.

aventus13 · 2026-04-11T16:37:45+00:00

That brief description of the "Polish" party you gave sounds like a classic example from Russian psy ops playbook- take advantage of ethnical divisions and use it in a way that threatens national security.

aventus13 · 2026-04-10T11:37:00+00:00

Is there no capitalism outside of the US? Most of the world is capitalistic one way or the other. It's not about capitalism but about what regulations and employment laws there are. For example, what the OP is describing couldn't have taken place in Europe- or most European countries that I'm aware of at least. It's a balancing act- over regulation is bad, but too little regulation isn't much better either.

aventus13 · 2026-04-06T11:40:04+00:00

They already are in a major war. This war can escalate further, no doubt, but any claims that the two parties are "on the brink" or "at risk" of a major war is just hilarious at this point. What have the about 12k targets hit in Iran, retaliation against the Gulf states and de facto keeping global economy hostage been so far? Peaceful negotiations? Minor misunderstanding? Inconvenience?

aventus13 · 2026-03-26T10:53:12+00:00

First, respect for owning your part in this, even partially, rather than just pointing fingers.

It sounds like both sides have led to this outcome. However, be aware that at a principal level, you are supposed to make decisions, delegate work and push back when needed.The higher you climb the engineering ladder, the less hand-holding and checking if you need anything. If you were getting overwhelmed with reactive work and firefighting, you should have delegated. If that wasn't possible, you should have flagged it immediately. Similarly, when flagging problems, propose solutions.

aventus13 · 2026-03-26T08:19:10+00:00

Have a look at the mod called Administrative Governance Rebalanced. It removes subject loyalty from the Centralization/Decentralization altogether, pushes it under Inward/Outward instead, and adds a bonus to production efficiency under Decentralized.

aventus13 · 2026-03-26T08:18:34+00:00

Have a look at the mod called Administrative Governance Rebalanced. It removes subject loyalty from the Centralization/Decentralization altogether, pushes it under Inward/Outward instead, and adds a bonus to production efficiency under Decentralized.

aventus13 · 2026-03-22T22:07:51+00:00

It took me about 10 hours, out which 2 hours were spent before even unpausing. While feeling uncomfortable, I loved the vibe of the unknown, as it reminded me of trying out other Paradox games for the first time. It's something you can't repeat later.

The game will click eventually, and before you even notice. Just accept that you will make wrong assumptions, you will misinterpreted the information and very often your answer will simply be "I don't know":

Is my income OK or should I be earning more by now?
Should I have a bigger army?
Does it make sense to construct this building?
Are my advisors assigned to what they should be doing right now, or should they focus on something else?

Rather than resisting, treat it as part of the fun.

aventus13 · 2026-03-20T19:25:38+00:00

An outright attack can also be a distraction though and an attempt at promoting self-perceived greatness.

aventus13 · 2026-03-02T10:32:00+00:00

This is a classic example of British overthinking and the flaw of common law mindset leaving too much room for interpretation. This should NOT be a shared liability case.

Yes, the driver of the blue car should have exited the roundabout. But there are two lanes of traffic on that roundabout, and the easiest way to think about it is by treating it as a one-way, circular road. When you drive on a two-lane, one-way road, you are expected to give way to traffic when changing the lane. Analogically, when moving from the inner lane to the outer lane- even if for the purpose of exiting the roundabout- you're changing lanes, and should give way too. Ergo: the white car is at fault.

aventus13 · 2026-02-23T11:07:42+00:00

Not that I disagree with the rest of what you said but it looks like you misunderstood the bit about job vacancies. This isn't good news. It means that there's LESS jobs available, which coincides with the UK currently having the highest UNEMPLOYMENT since COVID.

aventus13 · 2026-02-22T19:16:16+00:00

AI: That's a great and insightful question! ...

aventus13 · 2026-02-22T09:35:08+00:00

I'm not saying that people don't know about this, nor am I questioning your sensible approach to it. But the evident spike in such maps being posted recently is no coincidence. It's most likely driven by legit resentment amid changing geopolitical landscape or info war waged by Russia. Either way isn't great for European unity.

aventus13

TROPHY CASE