In Germany, a lot of medicine can only be sold in very regulated apothecaries. Those stores are allowed to recommend and sell homeopathy. There's even a state-exam for homeopath. Though for that you only have to demonstrate you won't kill your patients, not that you can actually help.

245032701*

can still remember my ICQ number, but constantly forget my own birthday xD

What is the collective but a collection of individuals? What, therefore, is collective action, but a collection of individuals choosing to take responsibility and do what they can?

Imagine politicians and CEOs decided tomorrow to make meat production sustainable and ethical. The cost of meat would skyrocket (yes, even if we removed all corporate profit). The very next day all those individuals that aren't responsible, according to your logic, would be in the street protesting.

But that's true of literally every single community. Posting copyrighted images in a pics community, copyrighted music in a little video/gif, a nazi denying the holocaust (illegal in Germany) in one little comment a hundred comments in...

Who do you think is more likely to overstep? A community very well aware of the risks and the scrutiny they are under, full of people that are themselves aware of the risks, or some rando on some random community?

Obviously, they are allowed to ban or not ban whatever they want, but I just think it's a very short sighted, quickfire decision.

So tomorrow all politicians decide to do the right thing. Meat (just as one example) suddenly costs 5 times as much, because environmental and animal welfare regulations (ones with teeth, this time). In what universe do you think the population would accept that???

ANY sustainable policy change absolutely REQUIRES the support of the voting population. And that's a million times easier in a world with even just 10% vegans. Any collective action is comprised of INDIVIDUALS choosing to participate, and do their part.

Unless you think they could pass mandatory consumption laws, not eating meat would absolutely work. We're at just 2% vegans, and we've got Beyond and a lot of vegan options in soo many places, compared to just 10 years ago. Imagine just 10% vegans.

While I understand the idea behind using CSS "correctly", I have, in my 15 years of professional experience, never ever seen even one project where the hypothetical promises of CSS were actually realized. It ALWAYS ends up with a fuckton of importants, or hunting for ages for the one class fifteen levels of abstraction up that changes your one element, coming up with more and more absurd class names, until they are literally no different from just some random name. Tailwind might seem horrible in a theoretical sense, but in an actually using it sense it's a heaven sent. I want to change the padding on THIS ONE SINGLE ELEMENT, I change it EXACTLY RIGHT THERE where the element is defined, and i can be absolutely sure that I haven't accidentally cascaded someone else's work to death.

#CSS, in practice, is the insane idea of every single element on your website sharing global, mutable state, and thinking that's in anyway smart.

I mean, there's also nothing to gain for the developer by continuing development. Most f2p games only survive so long because of those microtransactions. Think about how long these games are supported, how much new content they get constantly. The "good old games" were one and done. If you got lucky, they might patch some bugs, but often that was left to the community.

The worst thing is that it's often just that one specific mission that has shitty checkpoints. The rest is generally fine, but then you hit that wall and you want to do PHYSICAL VIOLENCE. At least that's been my experience.

I often find mechanics that only exist to waste time incredibly annoying. In the case of loot, a limited inventory is kind of that. You could absolutely just portal/teleport to town, sell your stuff, and then get back to playing. There's no challenge involved, EXCEPT that it wastes your real-world time.

I liked the pets in Torchlight for this reason. You could send them off to sell loot, while you kept playing the part of the game that's actually fun.

One exception is something like Resident Evil, where the choice is relevant to the gameplay directly. But even then, I would've preferred limits on individual elements (Only X weapons, only X healing items, etc.) and having extras automatically stored.

This is one big reason why I liked Fenyx way better than Breath of the Wild. The Fenyx world is far smaller, but also more dense with actually interesting things to do. You have a horse in both, but the distances in BotW are still just pointlessly big, esp. when 90% of the things you can find are just the same two things: shrines and koroks.

I personally find the most important part of those choices isn't the actual effect, but whether the game managed to immerse me enough so that I care.

For example, in Life is Strange, there's a string of choices you can make that will get someone killed (or save them). The game invests enough time in the character before hand so when you come to the crossroads, the decisions FEEL very important. Do those choices have any big effects on the game? Not really. The character isn't part of the main story line anymore after that, you only get some people referencing the difference. But if FELT important.

Think about the polar opposite: Choices that change the entire game, but you aren't invested in. Would those be interesting choices, or would that just be 2 games in the form of one, and the choice is just a kind of "game select screen".