joonazan

I think it helps to look at other problems caused by fossil fuel use. Higher CO2 concentrations make breathing air worse. Ocean acidification kills fish etc.

I did enjoy World though it involved a lot of interacting with bad UI and walking to a monster. Can't really complain about grind, as you don't have to fight the same monster too much. The story cutscenes and missions were painfully bad.

What I did like was fighting one big enemy rather that hordes of small ones, having to be close and it being risky, exotic weapon movesets. It is great that you can and do use the environment to your advantage all the time.

I would like to see a game that does the fighting big enemies in terrain but with more physics based attacks. The hitbox-based combat where you can put your hammer inside the beast and then swing feels silly.

I didn't like the equipment upgrades much as they only get interesting late in the game and all weapons of the same base type are essentially the same.

ME is a relatively bland shooter IMO.

On KotOR you may be missing the point. It barely has any gameplay. Combat is pretty easy and over quickly. The point of anything in that game is storytelling and fun quests, the mechanics are just good enough to not get in your way too much.

One thing to note is that many people agree that Taris sucks because it is mostly linear and the fun quests only start when the game opens up. Taris may be necessary to set up the plot, though.

Plant varieties are essentially inbred, so to get strong but still predictable plants, you need to cross two varieties that have some genetic distance.

The plants resulting from a cross are called F1. F1 seeds are comparatively expensive because of the effort required to make them. (Still, they are very cheap compared to other expenses.)

If the storebought peppers are F1 then their seeds are F2 and will be a random combination of parent traits instead of the perfectly predictable F1.

Another reason to buy seed is that you can grow much more interesting peppers. For instance beautiful purple striped Blot peppers or tasty Jimmy Nardellos.

We still have a lot of roofs that could have solar on them. Scaling up nuclear will deplete fuel mines faster because the isotopes that are legal due to arms treaties are pretty limited.

I'm not claiming that electric transmission is more efficient always because it isn't. But as you say it is close.

In a scenario where a train drives at a constant speed forever, attaching the engine to the wheels directly is a clear winner.

However, with varying torque requirements, an ICE can't always operate at maximum efficiency. They are especially bad at starting from a standstill. You can get a good overview of the concept from this wiki article. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_band

Startups on the other hand have people pursuing ideas that have been proven to not work. The better starups mostly just sell old innovations that do work.

We are comparing attaching a diesel engine via a gearbox to attaching it via generator and electric speed controller.

Electrically driven wheels can deliver just the right amount of power at over 95% efficiency. Direct ICE suffers because it cannot always run the engine in ideal conditions, reducing its efficiency.

We do this in locomotives but not in cars because cars need to be lightweight. Actually, nuclear is clearly the best vehicle propulsion, almost infinite range and high power. It is only used in ships due to its weight.

The tire thing is completely made up. Yes, they sell their premium tires but they are not necessary and do not contain electronics. https://www.tesla.com/support/tires

You are arguing a side rather than looking at facts.

You are correct that it is best to have a lightweight car if you have to have one. But an electric one does take over in environmental cost relative quickly and is cheaper in countries that don't subsidize fossil fuels and tax emissions. In addition the air quality in cities improves.

You can check negative steam reviews. On games that are hard not to like, the negative reviews are of very low quality or praise the game.

That said, the most interesting games for you specifically won't be overwhelmingly positively rated. But that is hardly a problem if you are content with triple-A.

Also, it is relatively easy to understand conflicts happening near you. People take very strong stances on faraway conflicts even though it is hard to know what is actually going on, especially in issues that there is a lot of propaganda or polarized opinions about. You'd have to do a few days' research to have a chance to understand some complex faraway problem.

Agreed except for R. That language's documentation and semantics are painful. Not Malbolge but reminds me of PHP and BASICs with weird limitations.