RenOS
something is wrong
No bio...
User ID: 2051
You don't even need the if here. You can already get guns provided you're sufficiently functional, patient and have the right connections. AFAIK the easiest way is generally getting your hands on old soviet stock from eastern Europe.
But these conditionals matter, because the average terrorist and hard criminal does not have these properties. People still get caught before they can do anything because they fell for obvious honeypots on silk-road equivalents. This is also why the large-scale entry of organized crimes into Europe is so dangerous; Not only do at least some of the members have these properties and so can organize guns for the rest of the members, while there at it they can also buy more stock that they can sell further locally, making it much easier to get a gun.
I mostly agree with you, but the trajectory of the things like the dissolution of marriage certainly makes me worried. If you looked 10 years after any one legal or social change, it would have looked like the conservatives were unnecessarily worried, but nevertheless when I nowadays bluntly state that modern marriage is entirely meaningless in varied company, most people agree with me (after an initial slightly scandalized look). This is a category change compared to the past, when marriage was both considered sacred and had a clear purpose (the creation of family). While most still say it was worth it for individual liberty, few disagree that we have lost something that we won't get back. And I suspect that there is at least some social desirability bias in what people say, but that part is obviously hard to prove.
These changes can take multiple generations to fully take effects. The first generation grew up under the old system and will often replicate it through simple inertia, especially if the change was explicitly sold as a emergency measure only reserved for extreme cases and there is a clear moral framework on why it should be so. The second already grows up with the measure existing, albeit rare enough that not everyone has had direct contact with it, and they will often extend the application of the measure in incremental ways for what they think is personal benefit (which they aren't always correct on). By the time of the third generation it is fully normalized so that it can be extended to large swathes of the population.
For this reason, I'd like a strict criterion of using MAID exclusively for cases where death is foreseeable in the near future (called Track 1 in Canada). It's still somewhat slippery - what is "foreseeable"? what is "near future"? - but it's imo much less slippery than estimating some nebulous quality of life cutoff that is sufficient for the state to help you kill yourself. I know Track 2 is still only a small percentage, but that needn't stay so.
I don't think that follows. Terrorists clearly choose to copy based on a combination of lethality and availability, as seen by the proliferation of car-based attacks since the Nice truck attack. Easier gun availability would mean more initial gun-based attacks, and a higher transmission likelihood for following copycats.
In europe it's quite common even for terrorists and other hard criminals to use knifes simply bc guns are just too hard to get for them. And that's despite hunting licences being available!
Has this actually been done? I'm aware of people talking about it, but not of it actually happening.
See Colossal Biosciences and their Dire Wolf project. Regardless at which point you consider it "true de-extinction", they have demonstrated how you can modify key genome locations of a related species to the original of the species you want to de-extinct, and that these modifications do indeed generate the desired traits that species is known for. At the moment it's, as said, quite limited (they only made 20 edits with large phenotypic impact), but from here it's mostly just a question of doing this repeatedly to get arbitrarily close to the original species. And dire wolfs have gone extinct in ancient times; It should be much easier with contemporary animals due to the better availability of varied genomic information and more closely related species you can start from. That approach is probably not viable for every extinct animal, though.
To the second paragraph, I guess my opinion is probably close enough; I'd be lying if I claimed that I consider every human life more valuable than every extinction imaginable.
You wrote:
I'd consider it worse to kill a critically endangered species than to kill a random human. Because killing the endangered species gets closer to robbing and harming every human forever (leaving aside scifi Jurassic park stuff) while the death of any individual human probably doesn't.
That's quite general about critically endangered animals, you don't make it clear that you only mean specific ones. So it seemed relevant to me to point out that in many cases you're not really robbing anyone of anything since it's just a variation of a common, non-endangered animal.
Likewise, the "scifi jurassic park stuff" isn't really scifi anymore, we're already doing it in a limited capacity.
If you don't distribute the aid in an orderly manner, and make sure that it does not get horded by a small number of people, you will also get starvation quite reliably though. I'm pretty confident that if the IDF didn't enforce order, they'd be harangued by international media that obviously they wanted to cause starvation - they just let bandits get away with all the food, how is that supposed to help anyone? Of course they will just eat some part themselves, hord another, and then sell only a sliver at excessive rates! Probably there would be some conspiracy theory how the IDF is secretly sponsoring and working together with these bandits, too, and/or even profiting off of them.
Israel always gets this super-agency where even if they help distribute aid among an hostile populace they need to make sure that everything goes perfect and if not it's obviously their fault, while palestinians get zero agency assigned, where even if roving bands actively try to steal aid it's just desperate people who can't be expected to behave any other way. The only thing which seems to be allowed is to stand by while hamas-sympathizing groups get to distribute god-knows-what (including aid) to hamas centers, which then distribute it further to their own supporters.
And it's not even that I particular like or trust the IDF or the Israelis. Settlers getting away with blatantly illegal conduct is really shitty. But no, obviously, if you try to steal while enemy military distribute aid to your own civilians you're gonna get shot. That's just common sense. Hell, you're probably also getting shot if your own military is distributing aid to its own population and you try to steal.
Eh. Species have been dying out (and splitting off) since forever, and our technology to re-breed them gets ever better, especially for those we have non-ancient samples. Especially since the majority of endangered species are just small variations of very similar, non-endangered species that is simply more competitive, sometimes even so closely that they can crossbreed.
Why? No matter how successful a company has been in the past, any dip can be a long-term re-evaluation or even the start of the way to bankruptcy. Especially if you consider the average person asking for investing advice, thinking they can reliably tell apart an irrational panic that will soon be corrected, or a genuine problem that will have long-term impact seems foolish to me.
On the other hand, index funds can't really go bankcrupt. At most, it just stays lower than expected for an extended period of time before going up again. The risk/reward for buying into the dip seems much better here for the average low-knowledge investor.
Great! Sounds like you're getting a handle on things. With clawmark you don't need so much FTH, especially if you two-hand. Prioritizing STR first while only going for FTH min reqs is perfectly viable. But more FTH will of course help.
Don't equip two short ranged weapons at once. Too much wasted weight. At most a dagger with a useful skill.
I know that it's hard, but this imo really needs to be changed. It's bad enough for progressives to be regularly downvoted (even if I may disagree as well) but probably unavoidable, but longtime posters constantly getting filtered without mod action has to be supremely frustrating and I probably would also leave eventually.
Ah yes forgot about that! That's a great skill as well. It also gives a lingering buff which can be quite substantial. Best on weapons with fast attack speed, since the buff is a static 90 holy dmg.
There is a reason people call Limgrave the longest tutorial in any game. Your options open up a lot once you leave.
But the heavy crossbow can drop from the crossbow wielding mobs in Limgrave, there is a short bow for sale in southwest Limgrave, and there is the light crossbow for sale on the weeping peninsula, which is also reachable quite early.
I can also give you directions on how to get the clawmark seal, which can also be done early. But that might be considered a spoiler.
Prioritizing vigor is a good idea for a beginner, but that doesn't mean you need to put everything into it. With 18 dex, I don't see why you can't use a bow? Otherwise crossbows are a good beginner ranged choice. The early game is always the most limited phase, and even full mages can't really cast all that much then.
Btw, don't put too much points into mind until your flask is substantially upgraded. You usually want just enough FP to take full advantage of the flask regen, not more.
Golden Vow is great! Early on 40 FP might be a lot so spirits are a better use if you don't have enough, but later it's not much and it will stay strong since it's a % dmg/def buff.
The scaling changes are also what you want if you play an hybrid build anyway.
- Do you take advantage of buffing and utility spells? That's one of the major advantages of FTH vs INT. FTH direct dmg spells being a bit more clumsy is just evening the playing field. Imo it is FTH that has much more variety. Just golden vow + health regen spell before every boss as a default is great, and there is so much more
- You use the wrong seal or have insufficient FTH, however you want to look at it. Godslayer has the best scaling at that lvl, or the gravel stone seal for lightning spells specifically
- for bosses the black flame incants are great since they have a % based DoT that can burn through a boss quite fast. Otherwise you could go for high dmg variants of spells, but those generally need better timing
- Do you mean the winged scythe? If yes, I also switched away from that for lack of dmg.
- Spirit ashes? The right ones are quite useful for spellcasters to cast some of the more involved spells
- talisman setup? Though generally better for def than offense
Edit: Also, be mindful of boss resists, -40% dmg matters! FTH has lots of possible dmg types, so take advantage of that. So, good that you are starting to use breath spells
Yeah, that's what I meant with the first paragraph. But he indicated wanting to actually use sorceries, so I didn't expand further on that.
There's probably some way to play a high INT+secondary stat with an appropriate weapon that scales with both.
Edit: Just looked it up since I didn't quite remember it, there are INT+FTH and INT+ARC staffs, so these are technically hybrid, but not really relevant for you. No +STR or +DEX or others sadly.
Edit edit: The demihuman queens staff has high base scaling and low INT scaling, so that would be the correct staff for a hybrid physical build I think.
But generally FTH is easier for hybrid builds in two different ways: First, there are more explicit hybrid seals that make your incantations scale with another stat, and second there are much more utility incantations that have no or very little scaling. Golden Vow for example is a great generalist dmg/def % buff that has no scaling whatsoever, anyway.
You need a catalyst to use spells. For sorceries that would be glintstone staffs or that one sword. But afaik sorceries always scale only with INT, so it's a difficult choice for mixed builds.
Just looked it up, my build in ER was a str/fth hybrid with golden halberd + clawmark seal as the main hand weapons. Buffing, manaless short range, mana-dependent long range all in one neat package that scales with both attributes. Thanks to str I can use large shields in the offhand. Especially on higher lvls you can also branch into other seals/incantations for other dmg types.
But it's just one example, there's plenty of viable mixed builds.
Dark Souls games (and ER is really just DS4) are generally designed so that they can be beaten with simple straight builds, broken weapons/skills and coop by even the filthiest casual, while a hardcore player can still challenge themselves with low LVL builds and meme weapons/skills. So absolutely everything is doable, it depends on how much work you want to put in. Mixed builds have a wide range from broken to meme depending on the details.
Generally, in DS games it's easiest to make builds by starting with a particular (upgraded) main weapon you like and maximizing its scaling + put as much as you need into survival. Then you can also use some supporting weapons, skills and spells that happen fit into that scaling, with maybe some accomodations for min reqs. There are also some melee weapons with ranged skills. Generally for lower lvls I like to put more into survival and use a high base dmg weapon with poor scaling so that I have more flexibility later on if I find a weapon I like. But if I remember correctly ER has some reskilling option so you should be able to switch entirely even if you chose poorly.
I can also give you some more concrete tips if you have something specific in mind. Later I might post my own mixed build for ER if I find the time.
Lots of people do different things at different times for different reasons. Generally though they do leave positions they hate, but I still agree with you that their behaviour is a bit more self-serving than they really want to admit. Usually, nobody really forced them into that in the first place, and it wasn't even necessary. It just made things easier for them. They often stay just long enough in those questionable but very well paying positions to get fuck-you money, and then pseudo-retire to more socially-conscious positions that earn enough to get by, and they donate just enough for it to be noteworthy, but not enough to really feel the hit all that much.
But tbh I think this is to some degree hardwired human male behaviour, and to some other degree simply game-theoretically optimal. If you're young and unestablished, meaning you need to carve out your place, you want to be aggressive and competitive, which includes morally dubious behaviour; When you're older and already established, you want to be cautious and close off as many avenues of attack as possible. You can be cautious from the start and probably will do fine, but not reach quite as high; You can stay aggressive and keep the top a little bit longer, but you risk losing at the young man's game catastrophically.
My impression based on left-leaning friends & acquaintances (of which I have very, very many) is twofold:
The first is a general aesthetic. When people draw images for the green future, it's just a really nice-looking, organic neighbourhood, farms with happy animals, it's clean, people still live in modern-style housing right next to a beautiful forest. On the other side, when climate change and fossil fuels are shown, it's dirty, it's ugly same-looking cities with large heavy industry, animals in pain from ugly, pustulous wounds, people in cramped apartments far away from any green (which probably is dead anyway). On that level, it really is just the good ol' politics of in-favor-of-everything-good-against-everything-bad; If given the choice, absolutely everyone would take the former over the latter, if there are no other ramifications (which at least aren't shown nor talked about). Woke is mostly the same; It generally sells itself first and foremost on extremely benign-sounding slogans and tries to just ignore, talk away and suppress the mention of any and all problems. Of course trans is just about letting a small minority live as they please, of course women's rights are only about not being taken advantage of by evil men, of course anti-racism/colonialism is just about giving formerly oppressed groups their freedom back, etc. And the - primarily - women who make up the bulk of the support really aren't unpleasant for the most part, often the opposite, they just want everyone to get along, everyone to work towards the obvious, common good and to exclude the minority of evil men. If you just avoid calling their politics into question - which in daily life will be 99% irrelevant anyway - they are usually exceptionally helpful and pro-social. But, of course, they have a massive, noble-lie shaped hole (and also, they can be irritating busybodies, but that's more manageable).
The second is a general distrust of the profit motive. Several of my (mostly male) friends who are much more successful than me (managing-your-own-company or high-tier BigCorp middle-manager successful) have had more than enough personal experience of engaging in what they perceive as anti-social behaviour just to keep their company/section afloat (stuff like cutting out a newly emerging competitor with legally grey tactics, deliberately hiring badly-paid interns with the promise of a permanent position over and over, actively managing a funnel into addictive behaviour for your freemium game, etc.). They genuinely feel bad about this and want to restructure society so that this isn't done anymore in the future. They're rarely communists and are aware of its failure modes, they want markets, but their experience makes them believe that a many of the arguments against renewables are as bullshit as the old pro-smoking arguments; If you put up just the right limits on the market, we will have a great, green future!
Tbh the latter isn't even that far from my own position; It's just that I'm much more suspicious of government intervention blocking progress and protecting old, wasteful structures in an unholy BigState BigCorp marriage (also frequently called the cathedral).
There's degrees of petty criminals. Plenty of them aren't actually nearly as ballsy as they like to pretend. If the NP store just does literally nothing, Aldi just having a guard who knows their faces and doesn't let them in might be enough. But it's hard to tell.

I'll grant you Switzerland. Netherlands and Belgium are still too recent imo. Marriage developments also took decades, as well as multiple specific law changes, to fully take effect.
And as I said, it's not that I want to outlaw it; But I just want to make the slope a little bit less slippery. It's notable that in Switzerland, it's merely legal by omission, it's illegal for organizations or people to earn any money or get any other benefits through it, and the substance can only be provided, but it has to be administered by the person themselves. All of these seem like sensible limitations to me. And there have been almost no changes to either practice or law since then. Contrast Canada, where it has only become legal recently, is explicitly legalized as a service by the health care industry, it already got extended significantly only a few years in, and is in the process of getting extended yet again. At least to me, it seems like it's reasonable to worry about a slippery slope being possible if it's done the wrong way; That doesn't mean it's impossible to find a correct way, though.
More options
Context Copy link