There's a little, top-down hack-and-slash, strategy/tower defense game built on this premise of "dad-mode" called Thronefall. I've found it fun and sufficiently challenging.

It's pretty easy to get through almost all of the content and leveling progression, but the developer puts out content regularly, so there is almost always something new to do every time I go to pick it back up.

It might be something you find entertaining.

We actually had one of my bosses say, "this is what we call a breakthrough," yesterday. First time ever.

Ok, now go post this on r/worldpolitics to boost your karma.

Seems like a good idea except for how often these states already force their own spyware and backdoors onto projects. Ideally, the state would fund it, but given their history, I'd prefer costs were covered by user donations as the interests of the users are the only interests I trust. We are the only group that is truly independent of competing interests.

Crowd funding and donations obviously have their own drawbacks. Maybe we can find a work around to avoid the privacy violations of states in the future, but I don't have a simple answer for how to accomplish this. The way the FOSS community operates is currently the best alternative I've seen, but I'm sure it's not always lucrative for developers. People need to be compensated for their labor and our current systems tend to put development interests at odds with user interests.

I support this. If you're going to fluff a paper with a load of bullshit words and clunky phrasing, it should at least be fun.

As an addendum, I would like to abolish the use of the word "herein."

Stockholm syndrome is deeply unscientific. Can we stop perpetuating this drivel?

You're confused because they don't know what they're talking about.

Nominees are the candidates selected by their party. Candidates are those who are campaigning for a position. Neither term is conferred by actually appearing on the ballot (a nominee can drop out before the election), but being officially nominated by their party is how they will get on the ballot.

Those aren't snakes, they're rubber bands.

I've been struggling to make sense of it. The white queen is the Roman goddess Fotruna and the only depictions of her with a bared breast I've found are modern art. Usually a bared breast is either meant to represent nurturing/charity or an indication of sexual violence.

Sure, it could mean be a symbol of her being nurturing, but in the context of this set, I wonder if it is a reference to Nazi depictions of ancient mythology such as the Night of the Amazons where they used a warped image of the mythology to display women naked amidst their "master race" propaganda. Fortuna was also popular in Germany at the time given Carmina Burana was written in the 1930s.

Ultimately I came to the same conclusion about decadence as you, but I'm not sure if there is anything more to the symbolism than that.

If I was a good capitalist, I would release a line of spray paints containing a concentrated, strong acid so they would corrode the metal, leaving a mark after the paint was removed. Call it something stupid like "Muskoleum," "RustEloneum," or "Cybertruck Repair Spray"," but preferably something catchier.

The loading screen tips also begin to change as you progress, going from normal tips to lines like, "So, you think you're a hero?"

My background is US.

Ah yes, self-titled world's police.

your march towards authoritarianism worries me

Yeah, you may want to rethink that one given how the US acts.

Yeah, I poke fun at your comment, but I mostly want to push back on this idea of "authoritarianism." So here comes a bit of a rant, but hopefully a compelling one. The problem with authority isn't that it exists or that it is used, but who holds that authority, how it is used, and who benefits from how it is used.

Leadership stems from authority. Parenting stems from authority. Social contracts are upheld through their authority. Saying "no" is using a personal form of authority. The bartender cutting me off is an authoritarian act! You know what else is authoritarian? "Bringing democracy" to another country. (Seriously, how is that in any way democratic?)

Authority is just an active extension of power. Both authority and power are neutral. They aren't inherently good or bad, but they can be used for either. Good and bad themselves are mostly a matter of perspective, who do they affect and how are what we care about. How are people affected by authority, how that power is used, and who are affected by it are a few of the aspects that help shape what we view as good or bad use of authority.

So if whether authority and power are good or bad is dependent on how they are used, then it matters a whole lot who has that power and what their interests are. Do they share their interests with you? Do they share them with most people? Are they using that power to mainly benefit themselves or to benefit others?

I would say that it doesn't matter that power and authority exist and are used, they are a part of existence. Who has that power and their interests are what actually matter. Authoritarianism is an empty concept, lacking any real substance. Every decision you make is authoritarian. Upholding social contracts is authoritarian. Staging revolutions and quashing them are both authoritarian. ALL governments are authoritarian otherwise we could do whatever we wanted!

You live in the US, can you walk into a grocery store and a small amount of food because you need it? No, because it against the law. You must use US dollars. Can you go pay in a foreign currency or trade in other goods? No, unless the owners of the store forbid it. Can you diddle or traffick kids for other people to abuse? No, US laws forbids it (but they'll excuse it if you're rich enough, because money grants power). Can you walk into Congress or any business and use your authority to make them operate exactly as you want? No, you don't have that power.

Instead of focusing on the empty word, authoritarian, a word that is essentially, and often baselessly, used to mean "evil thing we don't agree with," we should instead be looking at who holds the power that lends that authority, what are the interests of those with power and whether those interests align with ours.

You don't like a government because it leans too far from your interests? That's a good reason not to like them. That's a good reason to go authoritarian on their asses. You don't like a government just because they use their authority? That's hypocritical. You use your authority all the time and may even do so to overthrow them...if you had the power.