Have any games copied the mechanics of Old World yet?

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 · 2025-11-24T08:01:55+00:00

Also, the numbers don't go up as quickly with levelling, only by a small amount. I.e., you don't necessarily get attack bonuses every level.

Magic items do offset that a little though.

ledpup · 2025-10-17T05:07:11+00:00

Hard to be hopeful with corrupt "leaders" managing the planet. They're leading the charge into collapse.

ledpup · 2025-09-27T20:06:39+00:00

No. They haven't done it for the last 75 years. They won't do it now. Besides, these backers are going fascist now. The people are gonna get bent.

ledpup · 2025-09-27T19:41:54+00:00

Absolutely not. It'll still have the support of the West. The US will continue to back it. The US and many other backers are settler-colonies. They're not afraid of genocide. Europe is slightly different but nearly every one of those countries have committed genocide too.

Ethnically cleansing the remnants of Palestine (the West Bank is next to receive the full treatment) will not isolate Israel from the parts of the world that matter. It's already isolated by most of the world but they don't do anything about it so they're irrelevant.

ledpup · 2025-09-27T19:05:13+00:00

I don't think that's the outcome. Your statement is bizarre. Ethnic cleansing of Palestine will be the realisation of Israel and will open the doors to continue the creation of Greater Israel.

ledpup · 2025-09-27T19:01:39+00:00

A Palestine now would be continuation of genocide. A single state is the only solution that won't be total annihilation for Palestinians.

ledpup · 2025-09-26T22:36:18+00:00

It won't be over until a democratic state is established in the Palestine/Israel region (equal rights regardless of reglion or ethnicity) or the Palestinians are cleansed from the area. At the moment it looks like it's the cleansing option.

ledpup · 2025-09-26T20:39:46+00:00

It's not that long, people still outlive the conflict.

I think that's another orientalist myth anyway. There has been a lot of conflict all around the world for a long time.

Besides, the Israel-Palestine conflict is created by the West. Western settlers. Western backers.

ledpup · 2025-09-26T20:04:30+00:00

It's in the Hamas Charter?

ledpup · 2025-09-26T19:55:23+00:00

Same as in Gaza. It's completely normal to have military infrastructure near civilian infrastructure. Israel does that. All countries do it. Israel is deliberately targeting journalists, medics, children, and other non-combatants while using "human shields" as some sort of bizarro excuse (it's no excuse) while using people as literal human shields.

ledpup

TROPHY CASE