KombatWombat

It seems bizarre to me that the only user I have seen actually trying to provide constructive criticism for the bot so far in this thread is the one that already likes it. Especially when others instead advocate for things like the mods taking a political stance to endorse and using mod powers to reinforce it.

I like the bot. It's valuable to have context for the organization pushing a story. I agree that others are reading too much from the orgs they like being labeled as biased. It's assumed a news source will have some bias, and trying to avoid acknowledging that is dangerous. The takeaway is simply to be wary of any narrative being pushed (intentionally or not) by framing or omission, and get news from a variety of sources when possible. Instead, people tend to think identifying bias is advocating that the article should be disregarded, which is untrue.

To your suggestion, I do think adding more sources for reliability and bias judgements is a good idea. It would give more credibility if multiple respected independent organizations come to the same conclusion. More insight into their methodology in the comment itself could also be nice. The downside of adding these is that it would make the comment even longer when people have already complained about its size.

Other than that, I have seen people dislike using the American political center as a basis for alignment, but I have yet to see a good alternative. I expect a significant plurality of users are from the US, and US politics are globally relevant, so it seems to be a natural choice.

Nearly every critic I have seen so far just thinks it should be removed entirely because they find it annoying. I would say even if it isn't considered useful for the majority of users, the amount of value it provides people who do use it justifies whatever minor annoyance it is to others. Anyone who gets really tired of collapsing the comment or scrolling past it can block it in seconds.

Thank you to the mod who created this thread. Even if it's good to gather feedback, it's obviously not easy to get bombarded with negative comments. I'm impressed with the patience you have shown in this thread.

At 15:05 it isn't clear what is meant by a "full campaign", but it does sound like you can set up games to be only one age. I hope so, as I am skeptical about swapping civilizations. It was actually the primary thing that put me off Humankind, rather than a selling point. Resetting not only your Civ's identity but also the world's resources, map size, and the tech tree is concerning. If one age isn't an option, I am sure mods will save us at least.

Mod support and multiplayer are huge interests for dedicated fans, so hopefully we will get more information soon. VI improved a lot from V, so I expect it will be good.

I prefer the new graphics to Civ VI's overall, but I don't want to say it actually tops V until I've played it myself. A few screens seemed visually unfinshed. Story events, navigable rivers, leader skill trees, and the calamities at the end of ages seem intriguing at least. No mention of a world congress, hopefully they have a better system in mind than VI's.

Still curious about culture progression. They didn't show a card system like VI, so that at least makes me hopeful. Ideally I would like a permanent unlock/upgrade tree and a way to temporarily boost something at a cost in another system, like edicts in Stellaris.

Looks like districts and wonders still take a tile to build, but now other buildings do too? Cities sprawl out a lot, and are diverse within. Perhaps we will be able to build duplicate buildings that were previously one per city, especially since they mentioned city specializations. It also seems like workers/builders might be attached to a particular city rather than movable units.

Overall, I'm a bit less excited and more worried. There were a lot of changes from V to VI that I was disappointed with from the onset and honestly they did not grow on me.

You can get more reasonable prices per sandwich with coupon codes. For the ones near me, they almost always have a "FLBOGO" or "BOGOFTL" or "FTL1299" or similar variation to get two for the price of one. But YMMV and you have to be ok with leftovers if you're eating alone.

Haven't played Rise specifically, but I have played others in the series and I would expect Rise hasn't changed the progression system too much.

You don't really have stats tied to a level or anything. You do have a hunter rank that increases with quest completion, but this is just to pace the challenge of the available monsters you can take on at any point. Once you prove yourself capable of handling monsters at a certain tier, harder hunts become available.

That being said, you do get stronger from crafting better armor and weapons, which most of the time have most of their crafting requirements come from a particular monster. So to craft the full Rathalos armor set, I would probably need to fight one several times. This will have higher base defense than an armor set from an easier monster, but armor pieces also give certain passive skills in a fight, so new armor is generally a sidegrade rather than a categorical upgrade. You can do a lot of experimentation if you care to make a unique build.

Anyway, I don't feel like it's grindy. Hunting monsters is literally the game, so you just progress by playing and getting better. You may need to repeat some quests if you have a specific goal but it would be self-imposed. You would never need to for story progression or anything.

There doesn't seem to be a pattern for whatever name politicians become known by colloquially, except last name is most common. Hillary makes sense to distinguish her from Bill, but I remember people generally using her first and last. Kamala is usually Kamala, but you see Harris too. Trump is Trump, but you'll see people use his first name at times (like r/TheDonald). Biden is still referred to as Joe occasionally. Bernie was much more common than Sanders. For supreme court justices, it's usually last name or first and last. I've never seen anyone refer to AOC as just Alexandria. Obama is Obama, but I've seen Barack in really informal contexts. Nancy Pelosi is first and last. Elizabeth Warren is either first and last or just last.

Actually, the devil demonstrated considerable skill with his fiddle. Johnny himself admitted he was pretty good. This poster needs to read the Bible.

I frequently see people get negative scores for politely expressing an unpopular political opinion. And people at c/UnpopularOpinion get downvoted for it all the time. Reddit is probably worse though

Op discovers fiat currency.

Least popular opinion on c/UnpopularOpinion

But seriously, no one likes feeling like their time is being disrespected, and it's hard to convince the audience that "all just a dream" is a good resolution to a story they've invested in.

There are stories that can justify having a large sequence as a hypothetical/"what if" scenario, but often this trope is used as a crutch when writers either want to ignore canon to effectively write fanfiction for a while, or to retcon something that didn't land well by deciding it didn't happen after the fact.

Arguing with someone on an online forum is very rarely going to set that individual on the right path, but I like to believe others who read the back and forth may be more persuaded. I often take initiative to explore a topic I knew little about beforehand because someone asserted something I found surprising or simply suspicious. If people go as far as to post references, it's even less of a burden on me to learn something new.

I always recommend Aldi if it's a local option. It's where I do most of my shopping and I honestly have no idea what people are talking about with increasing grocery prices. It's probably gone up there too, but not enough to notice when I get my receipt.