DupaCycki

The USA with its corporations setting a new, unbeatable WR in any% glitchless turning into a dictatorship with zero human rights or freedoms.

Feudalism is a fixed structure of society, that was also capitalist.

In principle capitalism is usually about free markets that are generally controlled, because otherwise the system quickly collapses.

These two points seem both contradictory, as well as inaccurate to me.

Feudalism is "a combination of legal, economic, military, cultural, and political customs (...)" Feudalism - Wikipedia

While capitalism is "an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their use for the purpose of obtaining profit." "In its modern form, [capitalism] can be traced to the emergence of agrarian capitalism and mercantilism in the early Renaissance, in city-states like Florence. Capital has existed incipiently on a small scale for centuries in the form of merchant, renting and lending activities and occasionally as small-scale industry with some wage labor." Capitalism - Wikipedia

First of all, feudalism is a system encapsulating various parts of society, including the economy. Whereas capitalism is focused on the economy, but also affects other parts of society. Feudalism is by no means capitalist, as it's an entirely different system that predates capitalism by centuries. Naturally, there are similiarities and, in the end, feudalism transitioned into capitalism.

However, that does not mean it's the same system or that one is a feature of the other. These systems, or sets of customs and policies, change over time, adopting new policies and revising existing ones according to the changing world - that is a perfectly natural, as well as unavoidable process. Sometimes it may be difficult to tell precisely when a shift occured, kind of like what is happening in some European countries today. Although, using currently established definitions, we can separate the two.

To day we have democracy which is better but is also capitalist.

This makes no sense to me. There's nothing that inherently links democracy and capitalism. They are entirely different constructs. A democracy can exist without capitalism, just like a capitalist economy can exist without a democratic government. Furthermore, democracy predates capitalism by 2000 years at the very least.

Democracy "is a form of government in which political power is vested in the people or the population of a state." "Democratic assemblies are as old as the human species and are found throughout human history (...)" "Under Cleisthenes, what is generally held as the first example of a type of democracy in the sixth-century BC (508–507 BC) was established in Athens." Democracy - Wikipedia

To get rid of capitalism we need to get rid of all shortages for everybody, and that is not on the near horizon.

Not necessarily. I'm not sure where this conclusion comes from. There are no requirements that have to be met in order for a society to transition from capitalism to a different economical system. And actually, as of right now, we do in fact have enough resources to meet the basic needs of every single person on the planet. Housing not yet, but it could be achieved soon.

Feel free to think of a solution, but let's not throw overboard what has worked better than anything else, before we have something real to replace it with.
And not just philosophical bullshit about how nice it would be.

This argument, usually coming from capitalists, is not only counter-intuitive, but also short-sighted. Broadly speaking, to solve a problem, the very first thing you need to do is acknowledge it. If you don't acknowledge a problem, meaning it doesn't 'exist', you won't be able to solve it. Which is exactly why people are complaining about capitalism.

Then you may suggest which parts are the most problematic and propose improvements or solutions. At this stage capitalists will often say, like you, that there is nothing else, or that nothing else works or is proven, etc. Firstly, in the context of American capitalism specifically (as this is what the post is about), there are many existing, working and proven solutions to some of its problems. All you need to do is take a look at Europe, especially the Scandinavian countries.

Furthermore, socialism exists and, unlike what capitalists would have you believe, has been at the very least proven to work in limited capacity. That is, until it collapsed due to external sanctions or the leader being assassinated. I'd be curious to see what capitalists would say if we judged capitalism under similar circumstances.

All in all, we do have at least some improvements readily available for deployment. The problem is not that they don't exist or are unrealistic. Keep in mind you're not restricted to choosing either capitalism or socialism. You're entirely free to mix and modify policies. Again - like in Europe, adopting socialist policies while fundamentally sticking to capitalism. Seems to work quite well, and there's still room for improvement.

So what's the superior model to replace it?
Everything else that has been tried has failed.

The same could have been said in feudal times. However, thanks to smarter people, silly arguments like this didn't stop attempts at progress. If people of the past followed your own logic, you'd be a slave right now. Think about that.

Judges should be using ouija boards to communicate with people killed by death penalty. "So you were guilty, right?" To make sure everyone gets a chance to appeal the decision.

It's not bad for digging through error logs or otherwise solving simple to moderately complicated issues when it's 2 pm on a Friday and you stopped thinking about work 4 hours ago.

Buy a 5000 lbs truck to haul less groceries than cyclists do on bikes.

In my opinion, the game is not particularly difficult. That is, if you've played through the original Hollow Knight. Which most people haven't. In fact, it looks to me like a lot of people jumping on the hype don't have too much experience with metroidvanias and soulslikes.

It's a sequel, so intended to be played after the original. Why do we care what people who haven't played the first game think?

Colorblind accessibility is easy to implement and pretty much everybody can do it after reading a wikipedia article on colorblindness.

On the other hand, balancing a game for several difficulties is not easy and takes a lot of time. Plus, it doesn't always make sense. Part of the game is the struggle. If you're skipping the struggle, then you're missing a part of the game.

The main goal of a game is to be whatever the creators and/or you want it to be. Frustrating difficulty can still be fun, just like feeling scared in a horror game is fun. It simply has to be done right.

Keep in mind it's already very hard to make a good, balanced game. Adding difficulty sliders increases that exponentially. Even if you add a few presets - that's still a lot more work, which indie studios may not have resources for.

All you need to do is print it, forge the signatures and input it in the national registry. Should be doable.

I'm not even 30 and feel the same.

Are you sure it won't apply? As far as I understand, it'll apply to all devices with Google services installed. Which includes most ROMs, as well as non-Google ROMs after you manually install gapps. Is my understanding off?