Kinda dismisses the real criticism people have with guns yeah. They are not advocating against them simply because “they look scary”.
Kinda dismisses the real criticism people have with guns yeah. They are not advocating against them simply because “they look scary”.
Gotcha, last sentence sounded a little bit pro-gun though hence my response. I still think the ease of access is the main issue, by far. I would probably be dead if I was american as I could’ve easily got a cheap 9mm to off myself during the worse times. It was easier to reach out than to buy a glock and I seriously think it saved my life.
So I’ll reinforce my first suggestion to look into turn-based CRPG as a genre and see for yourself. That’s where you’ll find most of the mechanics you seem to want and you won’t have to take the opinions of strangers as to how much gore is too much for you.
Yes but it’s not all of the stuff, far from it
Is any form of violence or blood a no-no? If you can accept some, Larian (bg3’s developper) was already well known for the Divinity series. Many even say that BG3 is kind of Divinity:Original Sin 3 with a DnD license. You’ll still be killing some people though. Otherwise, I suggest searching for Turn-Based games which BG3 is. You might like Battletech which is a mech warrior themed game or the X-Com series where there’s an alien invasion.
And also, you might have been mislead by the videos. Yes the brain parasite is important but you’re really only directly dealing with mind flayers (the tentacle clad monsters) in the very beginning and very end. The rest is just a classic fantasy setting.
I am very familiar. It makes it even worse.
Right? And Roland has that deep menacing voice while Hart…
They could’ve at least went with Terry Crews if they really wanted a uber popular figure. He’s also far funnier.
Kevin Hart as Roland?
REALLY?
ANd If they don’t include Jack, they clearly have 0 understanding of what made this series any good.
Canned water from the alps shipped worldwide is very stupid though. It’s not on topic here but fuck these companies too. This branding is also incredibly cringy in any other setting than a party where you want to fit in with beer cans while not drinking. And let’s not pretend that most people that drink this don’t have access to potable water on tap.
I think we’ve been far more evil towards them than the other way around. We cut the most beautiful of them to make furniture after all.
IN what way would that be evil? They produce the very thing that keeps us alive by transforming what kills us.
I totally agree with everything you are saying. But you have to consider the application of said material. A bike frame that bends is a failed part and it does not matter how much more force it can resist, it is now useless. I also am speaking of catastrophic failure by the way, as in there is no bike anymore after this crash type of incident. In these cases, I believe the carbon bike will endure a greater amount of force than a steel bike. And that’s also while being far lighter because at equal weight there is really no contest.
I understand that it does not do well beyond it’s yield point. What I’m saying is that this yield point is higher when you are comparing specific applications like a bike frame for example. In the video, you can clearly see that the same force (in this case impact) just ruins the aluminium frame while the CF bounces back, repeatedly and while increasing the force applied. I am not saying that it’s completely fine and safe, I’m saying it’s still a usable bike frame even if unsafe if we are speaking peak strenght. This can make the difference between being able to ride back home and being stranded.
I agree that the damage can’t be ignored when it happens but that’s not my point at all. I’m just saying that the force needed to inflict this damage would have destroyed a metal frame to a greater extent rendering it immediately useless. That is also part of why carbon parts are so light. You need much less material to achieve similar strength.
Here’s an example of the difference between a carbon and aluminium MTB frame of the same bike model. Again, I’m not saying these frames are undamaged, I’m just pointing at how much more repeated and specifically applied force is needed to damage them when talking about two parts used for the same application.
edit:fixed the link
Carbon’s elasticity limit is far beyond what steel’s plastic deformation point is though. That means a carbon frame will still be structurally sound as a bike frame after being through an impact that would bend a steel frame to be unusable. Steel is tough, carbon is strong.
Of course there is some impacts that will shatter it but a metal frame would’ve bent beyond any repairs from the same impact in 100% of the cases.
Yeah weight is the best advantage for carbon imo. Of course when you’re riding it’s a marginal performance gain nobody really needs nor want. But when you’re not it’s a massive difference. Try going up a tight spiral staircase to reach you front door with a 25lbs roadie. Now do that twice a day to commute to work and suddenly the steel part really, really sucks. Even more recent options are still 50% heavier not to mention as expensive as some cheaper CF options, not all of them are 10k. Aluminium is really the only good alternative as far as I’m concerned.
And they also think looks is a valid argument.
Yet you asked “what is this”. Lol, you’re tripping balls mate. Plus who are you to decide what’s good, bad, strong or weak. Especially with some bullshit like “it’s apart from the world” (it’s not, it’s definitely part of it you aren’t transcending dimensions here). Anyway get some sleep.
Give me an example of a better answer to whatever you wrote here. And I wasn’t trying to be insulting I’m sorry. It’s just very hard to understand what you are questionning beyond “society bad! Yes/No?”
I understood that the first time yeah. And I think you agree with me since you edited your comment to further explain your idea. I’m not contradicting your argument, I agree with it and appreciate that you addressed my criticism. I think it’s a hot enough topic to warrant being a bit less open to interpretation, especially in text form.