I mean usually yes, but in the history in question here is public and very easy to confirm.

If I’m not wrong that was the whole point of criminalizing weed.

Technology has already given us plenty of ways to sustain a growing (at least until it tapers off on its own at ~10 bil) population without harming the planet too much. It’s the filthy rich preventing us from doing so.

Accessibility options can be a a lot more nuanced, even going as far as altering level structures to provide pathways for players that can’t platform.

Sure, but then we’re way past “there’s no reason not to add X.”

In a game like Hollow Knight (and Silksong), I can’t help but feel such a crude setting would end up doing more harm than good. I mean, let’s take health for example. Increasing your health wouldn’t help much if you can’t handle what the game is throwing at you; the few extra masks the game gives you only really help if you can handle the difficulty but need mistake tolerance, otherwise enemies will still hit you and you’ll still fail at platforming and fall into spikes. Fundamentally the difficulty of a game like Hollow Knight comes from a lot more than just damage numbers, so a naive difficulty scale would only give an illusion of accessibility that would fade away at the first difficult part, and in that case it’s better for everyone involved if the inaccessibility of the game is easily apparent.

(I’m just irrationally mad that they removed the cheeseable pogoing. It was so cheeseable but I get why they tweaked the mechanic to become harder to use in exactly the same way. I’m actually using the other offensive abilities more.)

Early game areas feel as hard as late game areas from the first game.

Are you sure about that? It’s been a while since I played Hollow Knight, but other than Hunter’s Marsh I think Sillksong has been comparable to or slightly harder than equivalent parts of the Hollow Knight. The enemies are tougher, but you also get more tools to deal with them so it evens out. Mostly thinking of the projectiles here, but the mobility difference also can’t be understated; you can abuse dash attacks in Silksong in a way you never could in Hollow Knight. Also I haven’t quite (or at all really) gotten the hang of it but the game might’ve been designed with parrying in mind, which would allow you to avoid a lot of damage because many of the harder enemies are warrior types.

Literally me. Explored the whole Far Fields before finding the guy just sitting on his ass in the starting area.

It broke four hours for me.

Setting aside the “the middle class isn’t real” point, distributing the rich’s wealth for the benefit of everyone else is the sales pitch of socialism, so the middle class is still on the side gaining from a successful proletarian class struggle. I mean, the bourgeoisie winning means the status quo with its permanently declining quality of life, so I don’t think many middle class people are too thrilled about continuing with that.

May I ask, good sir or madam, that you read this reply on a public forum?

His politics suck, but we can all afford to learn from this guy when it comes to not giving a shit.

هذه مشكلة كبيرة!

Surprising no one.

Okay this is apparently one of those things where you’ll get different answers depending on who you ask (even different Wikipedia articles give different answers), but this is a matter of semantics. No matter what you call it, mixing on a molecular level will result in the release or absorption of (in the case of gases a very small amount of) heat.

Yeah solutions can have any phase of solute and any phase of solvent. The most common example of a solution of gases is the air, so yeah.

No no, dissolution does generate (sometimes negative) heat. It’s called heat of solvation and it exists because when something dissolves it breaks solute-solute bonds, requiring energy, but then forms solute-solvent bonds, releasing energy. This difference can either result in the solution becoming hotter or colder than its components.

This estimate is also an overestimate according to the paper.

First, much creative endeavour builds upon the past and an extension of term may make it more difficult or costly do so. Were Shakespeare’s work still in copyright today it is likely that this would substantially restrict the widespread and beneficial adaptation and reuse that currently occurs. However we make no effort to incorporate this into our analysis despite its undoubted importance (it is simply too intractable from a theoretical and empirical perspective to be usefully addressed at present).

This means that the real number is significantly less than 15, maybe more like 12.

I mean, there isn’t even a debate.

Just like anything else an argument could be made for rehabilitation, but yeah banning for this is insane.

Always has been.