BadlyDrawnRhino

To save everyone a click, the game is Freedom Wars.

That "worst case scenario" really doesn't seem that bad to me. Exactly what would happen to any busy that overextends themselves and runs out of money. What, exactly, makes Star so special that they feel they deserve relief from the government?

To be fair, half of the AAA gaming industry is all about trying to clone the latest successful game with a new coat of paint. Maybe using AI to make these clones will mean that the talented people behind the scenes are free to explore other ideas instead.

Of course in reality, it just means that the largest publishers will lay off a whole lot of people and keep churning out these uninspired games in the name of corporate profits, but it's nice to dream sometimes.

If keeping these companies running is so important to public interest, why aren't they receiving public funding rather than relying on money given to them by shady third parties with their own political interests?

I also fail to see how these particular networks owned by international multinational corporations are really any better than any other international multinational corporation like Meta. There is just as much misinformation on Channel 7, for example, as there is on Facebook, and the fact that often that misinformation is communicated as news, therefore making it seem more trustworthy, makes it a lot worse.

The real conspiracy is that there's only one recognised holiday per year for most species on the planet, except for humans that get several per month. Seems to me that humans are trying to keep other species from having enough free-time to plot the revolution.

I'm not fundamentally opposed to nuclear. The country's power needs are only going to keep growing, and I could see an argument for having multiple options for sourcing that power. It's a very expensive argument though, and one that's hard to swallow when all the experts are saying renewable is the way to go, and I haven't seen any projections that show that we'd necessarily need anything other than renewables in the foreseeable future.

The thing I'm strongly opposed to with regards to nuclear is rerouting funding away from renewables to pay for it. It's an expensive technology that won't be ready for decades, so I just don't see the need to pivot to it. If we'd started the transition to nuclear three decades ago things would be different, but the LNP was strongly opposed to the technology back then, funnily enough.

And it's absolutely absurd to then announce a cap on renewables spending as part of their plan to get to net zero by 2050.

The whole thing is a farce, and the LNP hasn't given any good reasons why nuclear is the way forward over renewables. They haven't said much of anything other than shout about it being the better option, but then that's been the LNP's go-to political strategy for as long as I've been old enough to vote so no surprise there.

I think PwC should have had to return whatever they'd charged the government for consultancy, as well as a massive fine on top of that. Governments around the world need to start giving penalties to corporations that actually deter them from doing the wrong thing.

I think those quotes at the bottom are a really great summary of the problem with the Coalition's nuclear plan:

“As I said, from an engineering point of view nuclear power is an excellent form of energy,” Dr Finkel said. 

“What we can’t do is say, ‘Oh, nuclear is easy, therefore let’s stop all the wind and jump on to nuclear.’ 

“It just can’t possibly happen in the time-frame that we need. But that doesn’t mean we should rule it out because there’s that long term benefit.” 

I could see the merits of beginning to invest in nuclear now, given the time required to get it up and running, but only so long as the shift to renewables isn't interrupted. Unfortunately, I think the LNP see this as a way to seem like they give a shit about climate change, but really it's just a way to buy them another decade or two to line their pockets with coal.

I'm playing through New Vegas right now. I have one of the back buttons assigned to quicksave. I also changed the default camera button to one of the back buttons, because I don't use it often enough to warrant it being on the bumpers. And I have just assigned one to toggle collision, because sometimes you need that when playing something built in the Gamebryo engine.

Doubt it'll go to court, he'll probably just make a public pseudo-apology and that'll be that. But if it did go to court, I imagine the defence will argue that by not explicitly condoning, and in some instances fully supporting the protests, they were "encouraging" any criminal damage that may have occurred. I would hope that argument wouldn't work, but a lot has happened in the last six months that I previously would have hoped would never happen so who knows at this point.

Do we really need a third stadium that will sit empty for most of the year? Especially since it looks to be the more expensive option than a Gabba refresh, even taking the projected displacement costs into account.

I think they need to talk about what they would plan to do with the Gabba if a Victoria Park stadium were to go ahead. It would be more justifiable if they plan to convert it to affordable housing, for example.

Is that a slur? It has a racial component, sure, but I hardly think it is actually a racist comment, and definitely not a slur. And to label it as "racially motivated harassment" is laughable.

If this is actually what Kerr said, it's pretty indicative of the systemic issues that have been popping up in the UK for awhile now. They've been travelling further and further down the fascist highway since Brexit.