jonsnothere

I do think they have a point: there's not many other engines I can think of that are quite as 'tangible' as theirs. Every object has its physical place in the world and can be picked up, manipulated,... in a way that's unlike other engines where the world just feels more static.

I dab too, there are dozens of us!

That honestly seems pretty low for friend.com

Although the fact they're developing hardware on less than a million dollar budget is bananas, let alone the other whack ideas

He'd probably do something similar on day 1 while at the same time starting to recuperate the action politically, and after a few days just go into full conspiracy or similar mode

Yeah, in fact I think that's a majority of those cases. Vocal minority of reactionaries and/or fans disappointed that their expectations weren't met despite the product on its own being good

Not for a couple of decades he hasn't, see Spaceballs the series or crazy history of the world part 2

I remember seeing a hypothesis that ADHD would have been beneficial in Hunter-gathering, as you would more quickly move from plant to plant rather than fully depleting a resource. It was just one study where they had a sort of game/simulation to test it though, so very early days on that theory.

A nuclear power plant doesn't pollute either of those more than any other large building, and sure uranium mining is still mining, but renewables and battery storage also depend on raw mined materials.

Peer-reviewed NYT op-Eds (/s)

Unpopular opinion because it's so recent, but I think Starfield is/will be in this category

Well, Xbox and PC exclusive.

And to add a platitude: “Any idiot can build a bridge that stands, but it takes an engineer to build a bridge that barely stands.”