Yup - bought it for just a couple of £.
On balance reviews praise the story, sound, and visual design with some criticism of the gameplay mechanics - but it sounds like the gameplay mechanics aren't really there to be the meat, but more the vehicle for delivery of everything else.
What if I yeet myself into a volcano and leave a note explaining?
I've looked at buying Senua's Sacrifice before, but watching the video with the testimonies about how seen people with mental health struggles felt playing makes it worth it on that merit alone - if it does such a good job portraying psychotic difficulties.
Nuclear is an important stop gap in the process of replacing fossil fuels.
Trouble is, we're now so short of time that there's probably little benefit from making loads of new nuclear plants as they take too long to build.
The prefix and suffix stars, man...
And therefore all those poor people are not the people you're trying to convert to a plant-based diet.
I disagree that the really hard things don't cost money.
Eating less meat does, at the surface, cost the consumer less money. If I go in to the supermarket, it's cheaper to buy a bunch of chicken wings than it is to buy some plant based protein (not to mention my kids will actually eat the chicken). And yes, I know, "ThErE aRe pLeNTy oF cHeAPeR WaYs to EaT a nOn-MEaT DiEt.". Thank you, Mr Vegan, we're talking about converting the masses here. Government's can change that by changing subsidy weights, but then it's not really an individual-led change at that level.
Same for decarbonisation of heating - if I want to install a heat pump and insulate my home better, that costs money!
As for flying yes, that's more about regulating air travel to make it cost more and stopping the practice of airlines having to fly empty flights to retain their use of that flight plan. Again, not really an individual-driven change. Especially because the impact of flying disproportionately leans towards the more wealthy and business.
As far as I understand, this isn't quite right (unless it's changed recently).
If A defeds B, then A no longer sends new posts to B, accepts comments or posts from B users, or receives new posts from B. Any comments from B users on A's old posts (made before defederation) are no longer acknowledged by A.
I think A users can still interact with B's posts, but then I haven't seen any beehaw users in forever. So perhaps not?
C can obviously still interact with both A and B posts normally. On posts from C, both A and B users can still interact.
So, in short defederation creates a hard wall preventing interaction between A and B. The only way A and B users can interact is on C.
It's unfortunate as beehaw would have benefitted from a uni-directional defederation (i.e. preventing .world users from posting on beehaw, but not preventing .beehaw users from posting on .world. Unfortunately, it's both.)
Good lord, we so desperately need electoral reform.
So fucking disappointed that's now absent from Labour policy.
Absolutely. Possibly moreso.
That's is precisely my point.