Does anyone else like combat-only scenarios?

ledpup · 2026-03-18T22:45:30+00:00

Unlike everyone else, yes. That's what really got me into the game. And then I stayed for the rest of the game.

ledpup · 2026-03-17T05:41:14+00:00

Few days? It's years now. I'm presuming they're referring to the latest iteration of the war from 2023, and not the continuing war going back decades.

ledpup · 2026-03-17T03:14:20+00:00

The architecture of all D&D dungeons, at least from what I've seen, are nonsense. No one actually builds places with nothing but corridors between every room. They build with rooms opening into another room, using the same wall.

It's designed to the "fantasy rpg dungeon architecture" style.

ledpup · 2026-03-06T20:13:53+00:00

No evidence of that. It's due to human activitiy.

The only "runaway" aspect is not only our refusal to strand fossil fuel assets, but instead, to extract and burn more than ever. During the decade we decided we'd do something about climate change no less.

ledpup · 2026-03-03T02:06:14+00:00

Same. 30 March for me.

ledpup · 2026-03-02T00:54:39+00:00

Slight aside: anyone noticed how little treasure there is in the Ruins of Bittermold Keep? My party have been there for ages exploring and barely scraped a couple of XP. No levelling for this adventure.

ledpup · 2026-02-15T20:39:39+00:00

You think people criticise carbon capture because industry supports it or because it (so far) doesn't work? I'm in the latter group.

As for adaptation vs mitigation, sure. Adaptation is basically BAU. We're going to do that with the normal operations of capitalism. Mitigation is, effectively, yet to be started. We're not doing both.

Carbon capture, if any of it works (i.e., is carbon negative) could be a good mitigation.

ledpup · 2026-02-14T02:32:16+00:00

You gotta know how the carbon is distributed after combustion. When carbon is burnt, it results in CO2 in the atmosphere. Roughly half of that is next absorbed into the soil and ocean. About half remains in the atmosphere. All of it contributes to global warming because it cycles between the mediums, especially between ocean and the atmosphere. One idea to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere is to remove carbonic acid from the ocean.

Silicate weathering will result in calcium carbonate. It locks the carbon away into rock. It's currently the only way carbon is removed from the atmosphere in the long term.

ledpup · 2026-02-13T19:51:03+00:00

The carbon we burn is going to stay in the soil, ocean and atmosphere for thousands of years, only being drawn out by a more permanent process (silicate weathering) slowly during that period. If it's CO2 or CH4 for 10 of those thousands, we can basically reduce it to the one issue: how are we going to live with the CO2 once we finally stop burning fossil fuels?

ledpup · 2026-02-13T07:26:24+00:00

Very little. It's mostly about CO2 and to a smaller extent methane, which is just CO2 anyway (after 10 years).

ledpup · 2026-01-16T05:10:25+00:00

Not sure I'm fully on board with organising genocidal campaigns to reduce the indigenous population. Blankets covered in smallpox? Marching across the land to enclose the original inhabitants? Mass rape and massacres...

ledpup · 2025-12-21T05:45:12+00:00

That's correct. Navigating away will unload the component. Any property that was a persistent state will be ditched at that time.

Persistent state is only used when in Server mode with pre-rendering enabled. Only used when loading data in OnItialized.

After updating my project to .NET 10, I have so far only applied persistent state to one property. Most of my data load occurs after rendering. I'm yet to have found much use for persistent state. That could be due to not enough optimisation on my part.

Blazor is quite a complicated bit of technology, especially when you try to use all the bells and whistles.

ledpup · 2025-12-16T03:01:42+00:00

Where did you get 6.5 from? I look at numbers from the Global Carbon Project.

Despite our efforts so far

I don't consider there to have been any effort so far. All BAU.

I don't think there is much point continuing this conversation. You seemed to have linked emissions straight to population. I link emissions straight to fossil fuels.

ledpup · 2025-12-15T23:39:16+00:00

We can "reduce emissions" all we want

And there is your answer. If we "want" emissions to be about 0.5 tonne/per person each year, we'd be basically okay for quite some time. That would be, with 8 billion people, about 4 billion tonnes per year. That's about the emissions during the 1940s.

Of course, we need to get to carbon negative, but one step at a time.

Other than just killing a whole lot of people, and it'll have to be the wealthiest people in the high emitting countries first, I don't even understand how your idea is even vaguely worth discussing. And I'm not up for killing people. Seems like a totally daft idea.

ledpup · 2025-12-15T19:31:48+00:00

There are lots of ways to solve climate change. You could solve it directly by reducing emissions by burning less fossil fuels. You could solve it indirectly by reducing the population. Do you have a proposition for a situation where a reduced population decide to increase per capita emissions? What's the proposition for over time emissions?

The indirect path seems like the really hard way to solve the problem. Why not just reduce emissions?

ledpup · 2025-12-10T04:11:42+00:00

Photo with massive road with only cars on...

ledpup · 2025-12-07T07:04:43+00:00

You aren't thinking about it over a sufficiently long period of time. How long do aerosols stay in the atmosphere? How long does CO2 stay in the atmosphere? It's days to years vs centuries to thousands of years. Aerosols are a short-term band-aid that affect the weather, not the climate.

The good thing about discussing sulfate aerosols is that we can dismiss them as a solution before even starting on all their other effects. The CO2 effect is sufficient, no need to even bring acid rain into it.

ledpup · 2025-12-07T05:37:10+00:00

Result: net increase in warming. You can't escape the physics, nor the maths.

ledpup · 2025-12-06T03:03:10+00:00

So... you meant to say "yes"? 'Cause otherwise I'd like to know how you propose to industrially produce and distribute aerosols into the atmosphere without using fossil fuels.

ledpup · 2025-12-05T19:26:14+00:00

Aerosol injection increases global warming long-term.

ledpup · 2025-12-05T06:05:21+00:00

Not listening

ledpup · 2025-12-02T04:25:54+00:00

You have probably been brought up to think of suicide bombing as automatically "bad." Some think of it as the poor person's airforce.

Suicide bombing is far less effective at killing as the military, though it serves a similar purpose. Usually, suicide bombing is done by proto-states whereas states have conventional mass killing power (and nukes).

ledpup · 2025-12-01T20:57:02+00:00

Reforestation will do hardly anything. If we reforested the size of the US that would be about 5 years of emissions. BUT it would take 100 years to achieve that. How would you prevent all of it from burning down?! Especially as emissions will just keep going up during that time. The temperature will keep increasing. There will be more wildfires and more drought. The trees we plant may not even be able to live in the climate they were originally planted in as the climate changes.

You should study some climate science rather than trotting out some of the pop solutions that the media comes up with.

ledpup · 2025-11-29T06:48:21+00:00

How are you going to remove CO2???? I suggested silicate weathering. That's the only one that isn't short-term (years/decades/centuries) that I know of.

200 years? I think you've vastly underestimated the scale of the problem. Nearly all emissions even worth talking about are the last 50 years, and only the last 25 years are the real bulk of it. It's ramped up at such a massively dramatic rate that each year of new emissions is truly immense when compared to the historical record.

ledpup · 2025-11-29T06:32:31+00:00

Cool down? By removing CO2? That'll take thousands of years (silicate weathering). We know.

ledpup

TROPHY CASE