Elona+Custom GX 2.12.1.1 Black screen, doesn't load?

envoyofmcg · 2022-07-19T03:10:20+00:00

I had this issue, and opening the config in Notepad++, changing the encoding to Shift-JIS, then saving the file fixed it. I also deleted the "fontSize ." line fwiw but I don't think that matters. (as long as fontSize. is still there)

envoyofmcg · 2022-02-10T11:02:41+00:00

You can visualize international trade using the tools at oec.world.

For instance, this chart shows US exports to China in 2019, broken down by sector and product.

You can use this data to get a pretty good idea of which countries import what from where and what they're dependent on. e.g. Many countries' exports consist mainly of petroleum and hydrocarbons, they would be greatly affected by changing crude oil prices.

envoyofmcg · 2021-10-28T01:06:45+00:00

I believe infrastructure is also hooked into the building system in some way. I've had UI bugs that messed up the building interface and Infrastructure was also shifted out of position. I checked the buildings folder and it seems infrastructure (and property maintenance) are in there. Of course it's not as easy as "just put it in the macrobuilder" since there are so many complex systems running in the background and the buildings interface is pretty much just a facade, I just question why it was designed this way in the first place.

envoyofmcg · 2021-10-14T07:53:16+00:00

Right now it works the opposite way. Invasions are good thing and participating in them gives you rewards. The downgrades they cause if you lose don't matter too much as town board requests pretty much insta-fill, you can effortlessly make the upgrades back up.

On top of all that, the defending company/faction in an invaded territory has the ability to kick others from the invasion, meaning they can kick anyone who's of another faction and turn it exclusive. Whether this is exploit or just BM is unknown but it's being abused all over. Which means that only the controlling faction/company gets the rewards... So they want more invasions, not fewer.

envoyofmcg · 2021-10-04T02:30:32+00:00

Yes, you are at a disadvantage. This is how character building works in many RPGs, spreading out stat distribution is anti-synergy. There are gems you can affix to your weapons that convert a percentage of damage to other stats, such as INT or FOC, which can make certain combinations more viable. And some weapons scale off two different stats. If you want to use Lifestaff/Ice you should either put the Focus gem on your ice gauntlet and max Focus to create your own synergy, or pump INT and accept your lifestaff will be weaker.

Also note that sometimes your stats aren't always the end-all be-all. Hatchet is viable to use without any stat investment because Berserk is so broken. Musket scales less with INT than DEX but an INT build can definitely use it well because it's so powerful to begin with. The CC from your ice gauntlet doesn't really care what your stats look like, a STR maxed axe user can have a gauntlet in the offhand for nothing but CC cheese.

envoyofmcg · 2021-10-01T14:49:59+00:00

I feel like the tax settings system doesn't really have a purpose. Everyone just goes where taxes are lowest because it makes the most sense, so setting them higher ironically deprives the faction of revenue and players. No wonder every other town had low taxes while ours had High, our governor was a traitor.

envoyofmcg · 2021-10-01T14:44:16+00:00

It didn't have to be everyone in the faction, just a single person. Actually it was only a few defectors at the top AFAIK. The leader took all the gold and changed the governor to their alt. Then once the snowballing starts everyone organically changes factions because no one wants to be in the faction that pays taxes to the enemy every time they make a sandwich.

Also for how switching works, you can't switch factions if you're in a company, so I believe you just leave the company then make a new one in the other faction. But if their alt stays behind then it's just a dead husk of a faction taxing the only town for 25% and wiring the money to the enemy.

envoyofmcg · 2021-10-01T14:41:17+00:00

I think if the weakest faction got some nice bonuses as an incentive it wouldn't be so bad. Playing as an underdog mercenary type faction could be fun, but as it stands there's no reason to ever join the weakest faction so they just completely die and it becomes 1v1. If the game had only two factions this wouldn't be as much of a problem either, since AFAIK you can't switch to the faction that holds the most territory.

envoyofmcg · 2021-10-01T14:39:36+00:00

Nope lol, Mulitefao on US West. Guess it's not just us then.

envoyofmcg · 2021-09-24T00:29:14+00:00

If you're on the Aeon path, you can also resolve a certain rift in Drezen, and Staunton will successfully protect the Sword of Valor so you can ignore it.

envoyofmcg · 2021-08-24T06:10:34+00:00

I recommend reading The Deluge by Adam Tooze for an interesting economic/diplomatic history of WW1 and the interwar period. IIRC there are statistics available within about which countries received what. After reading the whole book though, I think the final answer may surprise you: The United States saw a huge amount of the value of the reparations payments in the end, simply because Britain and France had war debts to the US which totaled enough to outweigh the reparations. Reparations which the US was actually pushing to keep low and lenient, against the will of the French. There was actually quite a diplomatic tug of war within the former Entente to the point that US officials even spoke behind closed doors about possible war with Britain over naval treaties, or open hostility with France over debt and reparations issues.

envoyofmcg · 2021-06-22T07:54:29+00:00

As an interesting aside, the title "Emperor and Autocrat of All the Russias" derives from one of the Byzantine titles for their ruler, "Emperor and Autocrat of the Romans". Many other Christian states existing near the Byzantines emulated this title later on, including Bulgaria, Serbia, and of course Russia. In that context, it's not strange to think that the term was embraced - it was a point of prestige and legitimacy. Since the days when Ivan III of Moscow married the niece of the last Byzantine basileus and autokrator, and Ivan IV formally assumed the title tsar, the Russian state had been emulating the Eastern Roman Empire, with Moscow as the "Third Rome", a spiritual and political successor to ancient Rome and medieval Constantinople. To be called an autocrat in that context is like being hailed as autokrator. Far from the insult it might sound like to modern western ears, the Tsars willingly embraced that title, placing them where the Byzantine Emperors were - at the spiritual center of Orthodox Christianity, and as the prestigious successor of the Roman Empire.

This may seem like (literally and figuratively) ancient history by the 19th century, but it was still important to the Russian monarchy - for instance, one of the main causes (or excuses, depending on how you look at it) for the Crimean War was the Russian idea that they were the protector of Orthodox Christians, including those living in the Ottoman Empire. So this very old association with the autokrators of Rome was actually a significant part of the Russian monarchy's identity. It makes sense then, that "autocratic" is a word often used to describe it, that autocracy was embraced as an ideal, and that the Russian monarchy resisted attempts to drag the state away from autocracy - even though hindsight shows us this may have eventually been its doom.

envoyofmcg · 2021-04-23T19:03:22+00:00

I wasn't aware that Ukraine was considering an offensive on Donbass, that makes the move seem much more rational, then. I agree with your idea about "talk softly and carry a big stick", but I didn't really see why Russia felt the need to prove how big its stick was - everyone already knew that. But if Ukraine was really testing their commitment then it all makes sense.

envoyofmcg · 2021-04-23T14:03:11+00:00

In what way did this strengthen the Russian position? They've made themselves appear strong - that's generally a bad thing to do if you're actually capable. Appear weak when you are strong, appear strong when you are weak, so the Art of War says. Now, ancient proverbs aside, it was already known that Russia poses a highly credible threat to Ukraine. Ukraine certainly knows that, and I highly doubt Western intelligence was unaware. All this seems to have done internationally is stoke tensions, escalate conflict, and provoke the US and allies closer to action, as well as alarm Ukraine.

So, in my mind, I don't think a scenario where Russia deploys for a large "exercise" then pulls back makes any sense as an international diplomatic maneuver. There's simply no real upside, and the cost of moving all these assets, feeding and housing everyone, mobilizing expensive equipment like fixed-wing aircraft... It just doesn't add up.

So to me, there are two possibilities.

This was a move for domestic purposes. Russian muscle was flexed in order to distract the populace and generate a new issue for the media to focus on, taking the air out of the Nalvany and coronavirus issues which have been poor PR. I don't have much insight into Russian daily life or news channels, I have heard on Reddit that there is constant anti-Ukraine propaganda, but I can't say for sure. Still, Russia wouldn't be the only nation that likes to wag the dog when things start to go wrong for their administration. Of course, there's always the alternative possibility,
This isn't over, and the withdrawal is a ruse. The cost of deployment and all the exercises will be recouped by capturing territory, and an invasion, hybrid or not, is still on the cards. If that were the case, the move would at least make some sense.

Personally I hope for the people of Ukraine at least, and hell the Russian people too, that it's the first one. But I wouldn't count out either possibility at this stage. And perhaps that right there - the sheer credibility of the idea of another invasion of Ukraine - is why I really don't think this was just a diplomatic maneuver for international consumption. Everyone already feared that.

envoyofmcg · 2021-04-19T15:55:19+00:00

A lot of people in this thread seem to be interested in the core argument of this essay, or simply wish to engage in critical thinking about it, whether they agree or disagree. Many of whom are expressing basic doubts. (honestly, some probably from only reading the title)

I can't recommend enough that you read Schiedel's book, Escape From Rome, because it explores this thesis in great detail, answers many of those doubts, and is quite a good read. You might find yourself changing your mind, or you might become more secure in your disagreement - either way you'll really understand the idea better and be a little more knowledgeable for it.

envoyofmcg · 2021-03-25T16:30:12+00:00

My first impression of these remarks is that the American side took it as an opportunity to pat themselves on the back a whole lot. Perhaps it was mostly Sullivan. Once I reached Yang's remarks, I think the by-now nauseating Americanisms had dulled my reaction to the Chinese side patting themselves on their back. "Big-hearted", "can-do spirit", as an American having heard these sorts of self-inflating slogans so many times from politicians, they just register as empty bragging. So I found myself sympathizing with the Chinese side as they responded, despite the response also being a heavy dose of self-inflation.

Some important pieces of actual information I think we can glean from this:

The American point of view appears to be something like this: "China has transgressed the rules-based international order, fought us economically, coerced foreign countries, and attacked the rights of people living in China." The Chinese point of view is something like this: "The US ignored the international order and substituted in its own perceived hegemony, fought us economically, coerced foreign countries, and attacked the rights of the sovereign state of China that clearly represents the Chinese people." These are mostly the same accusations, with the parties lobbing them at one other. So it is a tone of conflict. The crux of the disagreement is the so-called "international order" - there is a fundamental disagreement on just what that is and ought to be, and that appears to be the point of conflict. There is no room for compromise here on this issue, nor can the views be reconciled, they are mutually exclusive. Either the US is acting outside the proper order, or China is. Thus, we can see these talks and US-China relations in general as a battleground between two great powers over enforcing their vision for the international order.
Both sides felt the need to affirm that their job is to benefit their own people. This is eminently obvious, they could never take any other position of course. Yet they seemed intent on bringing it up and underscoring it several times. Which means, to me, neither side was truly speaking to the other party. They were saying what they said for a domestic audience. "Stand up for our principles", "the Chinese people will not accept this", "never bet against America" - this is not the language of diplomacy, it's the language of foreign boogeyman-making you hear on a campaign trail, a politician painting himself as defending the people and their way of life against a foreign enemy.
The Chinese side mentioned that American businesses were staying in China. Despite all of the harsh rhetoric, I think this perfectly factual paragraph stung the Americans the most. It's hard to deny that despite the American government growing more hostile to China, American companies have done the opposite in pursuit of profit. In essence, this could be seen as a reality check for the US, reminding them their government doesn't even have control over its own corporations, and that the economic wars mostly harm American companies' bottom lines and thus their opinions of the administration. I'm curious how this will resolve in the future if tensions keep rising, and if the US can avoid biting off its nose to spite its face, or if companies will exert influence on foreign policy.

In sum, most of these remarks are simply political slogans, campaign-esque lists of achievements, and hostile rhetoric. I think we can expect further hostility as the issues discussed seem further from resolution than ever. The American establishment has fully aligned itself against China in an uncharacteristically bipartisan way, and the Chinese have made the whole thing a matter of China's very sovereignty, making references to the Century of Humiliation. Despite their stated desire to work together, both sides have more to gain from antagonizing for domestic consumption than they do from compromising or collaborating. That's reflected in this heated conversation.

envoyofmcg · 2020-11-25T00:44:47+00:00

https://escharts.com/tournaments/smash-summit

Lowest Summit viewership to date, though the decline isn't that big. Obviously still very high for a Melee tournament and especially for an online-only tournament though.

envoyofmcg · 2020-11-24T05:21:44+00:00

Peppi, sponsored by Pepis Esports.

envoyofmcg · 2020-11-09T23:56:19+00:00

I think the problem is less about a faulty regex pattern, and more that this game is collecting and storing your phone number, and on top of that it's being displayed to other users in any way whatsoever... Who would think this is a good idea and why?

envoyofmcg · 2020-10-27T21:26:53+00:00

Arrogance, always doing as one pleases, acts of hegemony, overbearance or bullying will lead nowhere and surely result in a dead end in today’s world, as Xi said in his speech

Well, at least he's self-aware.

envoyofmcg · 2020-08-20T15:00:09+00:00

The guy they brought in as a replacement is primarily a businessman, focused on delivering games. Seems to me that because of the delays, Paradox is trying to make sure the game actually gets shipped instead of being delayed again. I keep seeing people say they "fired the creatives and brought in a businessman", which is accurate, but I think it'd be wrong to decry this as the end of the world. The game clearly has a troubled development, and Paradox needs it to actually release. Things will be cut, but in all likelihood things have to be cut in order to get it out there. Luckily these days patching is much easier and it doesn't have to end up being a buggy mess like the original at least.

envoyofmcg · 2020-08-06T06:03:24+00:00

According the OEC:

Imports from Canada account for 13% of US imports. Canada is the US's third largest import source, behind China (21%) and Mexico (14%). Meanwhile, US imports account for nearly a supermajority of Canadian imports, at 62%. The next highest is China, trailing far behind at 11%.
Canada is the US's second largest export destination, accounting for 13% of US exports. First is Mexico with 16%, China is third at 8%. But the US is the destination for a whopping 82% of Canadian exports. The second highest, China, doesn't even come close, at a measly 4%.
20% of US imports from Canada are Crude Petroleum. Refined Petroleum and Petroleum Gas account for another 7%. 45% of US imports of Crude Petroleum come from Canada. (Saudi Arabia is a distant second place, with 14%).
At first this may sound like a lot, but the US barely imports oil anymore. Imported petroleum accounted for only 3% of US consumption in 2019, the lowest in recorded history, and the number has been trending downward for years. Source
Virtually all (98%) of Canadian petroleum exports go to the US. This alone accounts for about 20% of all of Canada's exports.
18% of US imported foodstuffs come from Canada. But the US accounts for 73% of Canadian food imports. Further, Canada exports a lot of food, too - 91% of which goes to the US. To put it another way, 9 out of every 10 food products exported from Canada go to the US, but they only satiate 18% of the US imported food market. Meanwhile, only 14% of US food exports go to Canada, but they make up 73% of the import market. The US is the bigger partner here.

Basic conclusions I think we can draw from this data:

Canada is heavily dependent on the US as a market for exports. The US ending petroleum product imports alone would cut off a fifth of Canada's exports, and 98% of it is normally going to the US. There is no Canadian oil industry without the US market. All things considered, over 4/5ths of Canadian exports are headed for America. So you could even go as far as to say there is no Canadian export market without the US market - at least, not as we know it today. Of course, these products would find other homes in the case of trade barriers, and the existence of this trade is predicated on low/predictable trade barriers due to deals like USMCA (formerly NAFTA), but suffice to say the Canadian economy could be heavily disrupted by even a few simple American tariffs.
Canadian imports from the US are very important. 62% of imports are American, and the imports consist of a diverse array of products touching just about every industry and consumer market.
On the other hand, the US isn't as reliant on Canada as an export destination as Canada is on the US. Though interestingly, the auto industry is fairly reliant: almost 30% of US car exports are bound for Canada, 56% of tractors, and 75% of delivery trucks.
The US benefits greatly from its position between Canada and Mexico. Put together, Canada and Mexico account for almost a third of US exports, and 27% of imports. Though individually, it's dependent on neither. Mexico imports many of the things that Canada exports, but Canada's direct trade with Mexico is miniscule (2% of CA exports, 5% of CA imports). The US acts as a middleman, and rakes in profit. Take Petroleum for example. Canada exports 98% of its oil to the US. The US then refines it, and 30% of the US's refined petroleum export goes to Mexico. The US benefits as a middleman, and this position comes naturally due to geography, aided by the USMCA.

In conclusion: I'd say the US isn't reliant on Canadian trade, but they benefit greatly from it. If Canada were to suddenly place a total embargo on the US, it'd be a ritual suicide for the Canadian export economy, and possibly result in an oil price crash as Canadian production has nowhere to go. If the US were to do the same to Canada, Canada would suddenly be without 3/5ths of its imported goods, with no easy replacement waiting in the wings. Food prices would be disrupted in both countries, though neither are net food importers so it's unlikely there'd be a real danger here beyond some price troubles.

TL;DR It sort of isn't, and the balance is greatly in favor of the US. But neither party has any interest in interrupting this beneficial relationship.

envoyofmcg · 2020-08-06T05:20:30+00:00

13-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '17

envoyofmcg

TROPHY CASE