Leaderboard

That is, everybody can do something Buying local products Avoid using products wrapped or packaged in too much plastic as much as possible Use public transportation as much as possible It is not necessary to have a new smartphone every half year Use energy efficient appliances and lighting Boycott products of large polluting companies. This to begin with and what I strictly comply with. But although the consumer himself can make some changes in his habits, ultimately it is the same neoliberal system that must change, based precisely on wild consumerism for a supposed infinite growth in order to exist and this depends on what we vote for. It's capitalim and economic interests vs Nature and Earth.

Can't stop laughing at this: https://www.theregister.com/2021/09/02/republican_revenge_threat/ When I was a kid, intimidation and obstruction of justice were not typically done out in the open.

A must watch: Wikipedia of the past represents what was great about early internet culture. The public was rushing to bring new information to light and illuminate all aspects and viewpoints. It was a truth accelerator because all views and facts could be openly challenged until only the most robust ones emerged. The current incarnation of Wikipedia is a hellish landscape of censorship, partisan views, astro-turfing, PR, and corporate subservience. I suppose that someone with a religious bent would say that us "free-loading sinners are reaping what we sow" by ignoring Jimmy Wales' pleas for pocket change to keep the site alive. I would grimly suggest that if Wikipedia wasn't easily susceptible to sway by the power brokers of the world, it would instead be tarnished by paid actors and turned into a turgid landscape of fake racist \ sexist comments to be fodder for news pundits who would cry "shut it down!". In short, if it weren't for Wikipedia's willingness to abide the powerful it would have the same fate as voat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voat .. which started as a strongly "free-speech reddit clone" but was subject to non-stop attacks and subversion and was posthumously labeled as a "racist alt-right blog" by a powerful coalition of political propaganda groups and their friendly media outlets. I fear that all sites that offer viewpoint neutrality and free speech on political topics are at risk now. The new modus operandi is to "de-platform" anything that does not align to the approved narratives. For example, reddit just banned the "No New Normal" forum where anti-vax crazies share their memes and articles. In the past, when such a group would arise out on the internet it would either be shrugged off and ignored or people would engage with it either directly or indirectly to debunk whatever nonsense was being spouted. This was the case for flat earth discussions, young earth creationists. etc. Now, rather than letting nature take it's course and allowing users to discuss and debate the topic... it is simply labeled "too dangerous to exist" and banned. If you wanted to radicalize a segment of the population, you could go no further than "banning all their speech" and this action seems to be exactly what an authoritarian would want if they wanted to start a little civil war. I am strongly inclined to believe that Reddit's Chinese investors are intentionally encouraging this censorship model. China would be all too happy to inflame the partisan divide by banning all right-leaning speech. Someone needs to remind people that we have had anti-vax crazies since at least 1998 and before that we had whole religious sects who forbade any medical interventions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science The answer to that "problem" was not "duct tape their mouths shut". It was instead to have lots of open and frank discussions or vigorous debates. If "No New Normal" could be co-opted to mean that we no longer use "censorship as a shortcut" to avoid the hard work of countering the ill informed then I could count myself into the numbers of those who appose this "new normal".

As I said before, we are the main cause of climate change, which as a cause also has the natural climatic fluctuation that repeats every 80,000-100,000 years, but we are accelerating this change by 10, which is clearly shown by the statistics that have been taken from the ice sheets of the arctic of the last hundred of thousend of years. An exponentially accelerated change since the industrial revolution. Human influence vs natural change Visble consecuences https://earth.org/data-visualizations/case-studies/ https://climate.nasa.gov Real time with satelite, among others. Anyway, we have to do something right now or we have to move to another planet .... ah, okay ... there isn't.

If anything, going against the notion of climate change would be the money maker. Industry has a vested interest and practically infinite means to influence politicians and public opinion that nothing ought to be done, and writers like Lüning have a personal interest in "exposing" climate change (or vaccines, for that matter) since it has significant potential to become a bestseller book. On the other side you have the interest of media to publish click-bait articles, i.e. I was quite disappointed to read in the fine print that National Geographic's April 2020 article "See how your city's climate might change by 2070" was based on a worst case scenario. This is a general problem of relying on second hand sources like newspaper articles for learning about complex issues. This is an important reason to be scientifically literate and read the research articles yourself in the context of other research and with an eye for flaws. Scientists have formal training in this and comprehensive knowledge of their field. So when the majority of climate scientists agree that climate change is man-made and a major problem for humanity's future, this carries much more weight for me than what commentators in a newspaper or a fringe website have to say. Granted, scientists have a conflict of interest when they receive funding for their research which, at least in medical research with ties to industry, is associated with lower methodological quality and higher odds of the conclusion being favourable towards the sponsor. The question is, do politicians actually have an interest in climate change being a major problem? Policy that would adequately address it would be highly unpopular both with the donor class and the general public, since - very understandably - most people don't want to give up a significant part of their living standard. Failing to implement such policy, on the other hand, causes politicians to lose their credibility in the view of climate-conscious voters when they consistently and spectacularly miss their own climate goals. That seems to be the dynamic at least in Germany, where the only party that more than half-heartedly campaigns on addressing climate change historically had little say in running the country or financing German climate research. What I think is valid criticism is the validity of climate models to predict what will happen in the future, since the climate is incredibly complex. However, for that reason, I think the statements "climate change will be a catastrophe" and "climate change is just hysteria" are equally uncertain. What we do know for certain is that atmospheric CO2 is rising rapidly, acts as a greenhouse gas and the resulting temperature increase has a highly plausible causal relationship with many of the climate developments we're witnessing.

These area's are not fully finished with optimization, but they are running quite fine with just basic visportaling for now. I've also adjusted the architecture to help with optimization. That way the the engine is not drawing anything past certain heavy areas with high density.

Just a quick comparison screenshot. Currently working on the clock tower. Note: Fps should be 144 +- once I visportal properly. I'm running this on an Alienware i9 32gb w/2080, so mileage may vary..

Thanks. I didn't know of the wiki article. Guess I searched the wrong keyword. I did skim trough it. I like that there is much explained - something that some topics still miss to do in the wiki. So that's great. However for someone who touches this for the first time there might be a little quick setup guide too. So one can follow the text and try it out immediately by themselves. I think it's easier to grasp. But that's not critique - I both like the feature itself and also that there's an extended wiki article already. Just didn't find it

This forum thread was originally created only to discuss development of the feature with @greebo and @OrbWeaver. As for "How to Use", there is technical description on the wiki: https://wiki.thedarkmod.com/index.php?title=Hot_Reload It starts with some technical details which scare people away. Although I still recommend reading them sooner or later. The article also contains usage instructions in "DarkRadiant" section. I guess I'll update the article once the new pack of changes is incorporated into DR. It would become much easier to start using the feature than it is now, so perhaps "how to start" instruction would become totally unnecessary.

Im glad you are! The map is a hybrid of 'Life of The Party' and the Thief 2 Alpha Demo 'Unexpected Guest'. The Alpha Demo was my introduction to the Thief series. I was bummed out when Life of The Party changed some key areas I loved, especially the Bell Tower location.