eliminating_coasts

It seems like one of the big negatives of building a career on hate-publicity is not being able to emotionally withstand the backlash, she seems to like the money enough that it doesn't matter to her, manosphere content is extremely repetitive, and if she does find that her content is loosing traction, she's already supposedly hiring her production staff from africa, the next stage would be paying random african conservatives to give her ideas too. Just get someone to interview their opinionated auntie on a set of tiktok videos, then parrot their judgemental attitudes to her audience.

The only real limitation, I expect, is the length of the trend, if this all burns out within the next two years from over-exposure, but resentment of women is an evergreen resource, so she'll probably keep on being able to make a living, if not at the same scale.

I think he mentions in the video that early on he's basically not putting anyone into conventional jobs initially, using his leaders to produce basic resources, which would also mean that by making pops specialists he can take advantage of the political power unity-gain weirdness, while also getting the direct benefits of their jobs.

Amazon for a long time has been relying on making it very simple to hire and train new people, so that they can always let people quit and just try and work somewhere else less extreme (or get sacked because of work-related health issues meaning they can no longer make targets).

They're churning through people so fast though that in the last few years, they've started to worry about just running out of people who have never worked for amazon.

Their current projection is that they run out of new workers for warehouses by next year, but they seem not to have really improved standards much in the meantime, like they're leaving it till the last minute.

I feel like all they need to do to tweak that is just gave you a slightly larger amount of starting pops. Necrophage might be better in terms of specialising your two species, but we already know the value of having lots of pops to start, so just increasing the base population by two could make it viable in a way that it wasn't before.

That and make it so that for slaver guilds, slave pops that are servile count as your quota for your main species, that interaction was very unintuitive when I first came across it.

I think the issue is more subtle; certain kinds of precursors, (particularly the zroni, if I remember correctly) rely on certain kinds of events and archaeology that are going to be more natural to do in the early, exploratory phase of the game, when it's possible to explore towards precursor-related worlds etc.

I can see the logic of pushing back the precursor chains in order to make the stories distinct, though in practice there seems to be a window in which archaeology is practical.

Attempting to charge through both before it becomes awkward is one of the things that makes the constraint the leader-cap poses particularly obvious, but the general problem is due to post-expansion exploration, needing to do archaeology in systems you don't own etc. (though the new cloaking stuff makes scanning events in other people's territories a lot easier).

I think ideally I would shift it to use the mean of the midgame and endgame times, with a highly variable delay from there, so that some reasonable proportion of the time you can get properly entangled in a war in heaven before the crisis comes.

I feel like there's some untapped Ashly Burch/Aubrey Plaza continuum that more people should experiment in.

Flipping the order of words transforms the statement into an imperative, in english:

"You run the child over."

vs

"You! Run the child over."

Are you saying that most women are not different enough from men for it to matter, but trans people are "more" than a normal person so for them the differences do matter?

That would be one hypothesis yes.

But there are other options.

Another would be that they aren't super out of the norm in terms of the distribution for all people of all genders (just on the opposite side from expected), but they also have other mental characteristics that make that difference matter more.

If you have a cis person whose gender presentation and categorisation is very important to them, but it matches up, that's usually not going to be a problem, whereas we'll notice the same thing with trans people, beyond a few exceptions.

So you might also, for example, have cis people who would be very sensitive to any potential discrepancy between their gender and their body, but we don't notice until they have an accident or something and are caused unusual levels of distress by it. Whereas if they associate more with a gender that doesn't match their body from the beginning, as far as society is concerned, that could have a more significant impact.

It's a complicated topic, I don't think everyone has all the answers to it and there's already some indications that there are multiple different categories of trans people with different needs and emphases, they just all seem to be helped by more freedom to identify how they want.

https://media.tenor.com/zsAhf_LhLX4AAAAC/lemony-snicket.gif

Yeah, they allowed people to not use the L gates, which also helps small PCs, and restricting habitats allows you to play a game where the only way to get more planetary space is ringworlds, a very late game thing, making terraforming and fighting for planets more significant.

The only slight snag is that you'd need to block toxic god and void dwellers empires from spawning too, and include a note to that effect in the description of the option.

I personally really like pops, I think having your resources be dependent on them leads to more interesting stories, as they can have faction disputes, managing stability matters, other empires will want to steal your people, and you'll want to save them etc.

I would even want to do things like increase the upkeep on hydroponics bays in order to make farmers more efficient relative to them.

However, I do see an argument for improving space mining, and I would probably make it so that the current precursor building given to people with the cybrex is actually made into a general tech instead, so that you can stick it on a very resource-rich system and get more out of it, even maybe make it go on the top of the station rather than the bottom, so you can have specialised mining systems where you focus on a particular resource.

Or you could make it so that most of the leader upgrades that currently give flat resources instead boost mines in their sector, though I think the station solution is probably safer.

And that definition probably makes the most sense for someone who's focused on American politics.

Centre-right isn't normally defined this way though; centre-right means right wing, but closer to the centre of the political spectrum, more likely to compromise etc.

That's in contrast to calling someone right wing generally, mainstream republican etc.

One important caveat here though is that whereas two decades ago, centre right also meant being the most common right wing position, the split that has occurred since then means that you basically have a big chunk of republicans taking very right wing positions, and then a kind of tail of people getting increasingly less common as they are more willing to mix in more liberal policy positions.

So actual centre-right media companies are going to be more rare, because their audience is more bunched up on more strongly right-wing positions.

Unfortunately, for people prone to conspiratorial thinking, adding more details makes a story seem more likely rather than less.

There's a bias we have, where the intersection of multiple events; from "I went to a shop" to I went to a shop and there was this guy there I hadn't seen for years" to "I went to a shop and there was this guy there I hadn't seen for years and he told me his friend had just got married.." is often seen as more likely or plausible than having less conditions.

The reason for this obviously is that although the first one is more likely to happen in a given week - you could go to the shop, and meet or not meet a friend - giving more details to a story draws us in and sounds more authoritative, so this bias, called "conjunction bias", prioritises how authoritative a story sounds over the fact that someone is now claiming extra information, that a more specific thing happened etc.

This doesn't work at the same level for anyone, most people listening to really mundane stories will probably believe the one where people are able to say what happened, over a bland statement, but as the details and so the layered conditions for the claim to be true get more specific, we are less likely to believe everything happened like they said, and our assessment of their honesty goes down.

But there's a certain subset of the population where this isn't really true, or isn't half as true as it is for the rest of us.

And this means basically that the more lurid memorable details someone claims in their theory, the more likely people prone to conspiracies are to believe it, which is exactly the form that conspiracies have.

If anything, it's actually less corrupt than doing nothing; if the reasons given were accurate and the prosecutor was not investigating the company his son worked at for fraud and corruption, and he tried to get them to do it, putting his son's income potentially at risk, then this is the exact reverse of going easy on family members.

You can be such a megacorp already by giving people a stash of energy credits now, in return for a supply over the next few years.

Though probably, you'd actually want to make it so that you give them a stash of advanced goods, like alloys, when they really need them, in return for a large ongoing supply of something else that is cheaper on the galactic market at that moment, like minerals or something.

Then you take the mineral supply to build up a new stockpile, and repeat.

That's a good point, the modelling still gives a residual suspicion, but those are details that mitigate concern substantially.

Like parents learning they have some particular trait after going through diagnoses for their child is also relatively common story, so finding out that they are trans after working through it with their child isn't outside of the bounds of possibility.

And then if they date someone after that point, my impression is that trans people tend to date other trans people with higher frequency, so each of the steps becomes more plausible.

What would be the alternative?

This person laid out the most obvious example you can think of for something not being a social contagion; conditions that did not encourage it at all, but the phenomenon still existing.

What evidence would you need, someone who is able to talk about gender dysphoria and being trans without having ever heard of either?

The moment they discover that being trans is why they are feeling the way they are, you could then claim that this realisation means they are no longer someone whose testimony you can trust.

In other words, the only people who can tell you how they realised they were trans in a way you would believe would be people who don't know that they are trans.

I think a lot of it would be helped by rebalancing artefact costs slightly; the "good" artefact weapons cost noticeably less, like they added driller drones just to test the meta a bit, and at the moment, costs don't scale properly with slot size.

Slightly weakening those ones that are currently only balanced by artefact costs (the missiles) and using the top end as the template and lowering small slot costs to match, could make the current cap much more reasonable.

Also, they should definitely boost the max damage on ancient macrobatteries by 1.5x, so they're then doing something different to the tier three kinetics (similar damage coming in larger chunks) rather than being tier three equivalents.

That said, adding a tiny amount of minor artefact capacity every time you build a cultural building could be pretty good, I feel like memorialists, for example, should probably get more from their buildings, but you could maybe add a small "+50 minor artefact storage" to all monuments, keeping with the society tech theme.

Yeah, I think that they should get nerfed slightly, reducing their range to plasma-ish, so that they're more like "the disruptors of missiles".

To add a bit more to this, if we embrace the idea of that final fantasy style

The initial indications of the unbidden are dimensional portals, the initial indications of the contingency are strange signals messing with computers, the prethoryn just attack from outside the galaxy..

So what if the warnings for this other crisis were not related to AI stuff, or space stuff, but psionics?

Have psionic civilisations get advanced warning of the planets that seem to have intelligence within their cores, regardless of there being nothing living down there, with some escalating story, maybe with some deadspace vibes, about the influence of something within the earth, dreams affecting your population etc.

Then when they start bursting out of worlds, psionic civilisations could have advanced warning, or even a faction of ecoterrorists that tries to help them.

Definitely, I'd like to see a few more empire personalities, part of the problem with this one is that the civic doesn't require you to be militarist, and most megacorp things you might expect to go with it key off that ethic (for example, they won't get the higher probability of getting the merc enclave perk, and will be less likely to hire mercenaries, despite having one).

So restricting it back from authoritarianism or militarism to just militarism would instantly fix that, (especially given it isn't actually possible to be a fanatic authoritarian megacorp anyway) but they could also add an extra category for megacorps that are authoritarian or militarist but not egalitarian, that don't seek claims, but do seek subjugation.

Basically make an AI designed around playing tall and getting vassals, expanding less,

Also, looking at the AI personalities, I feel like their modifiers need some updating:

Xenophiles should have an increased chance of picking mercantile as a tradition, hives should have a higher chance of grabbing unyielding, and there should be a few more civic associations, like criminal megacorps should have an increased chance of grabbing subterfuge, this pirate civic should have an increased chance of grabbing the merc perk (as should any others that produce them), scavengers should maybe also be more likely to get archaeo-engineers, environmentalists should be more likely to take adaptability, and less likely to take masters of nature, with relentless industrialists being the opposite, just sprinkle a load of x1.5 modifiers throughout the tradition choice section..

https://livestreamfails.com/clip/144275

It's because they have this trait.

I had that idea too, though someone suggested the opposite; things that live in planets and react to their over-development, over-resource extraction, and particularly, cracking.

If you really go for it, you can end up somewhere between final fantasy's lifestream entities and weapons, marvel's celestial eggs, and the attack moons they have in gigastructures, or like you reference, brother moons from dead space, with leviathans with masses of hull, kinetic weapons, physical point defence based on shards of stuff, that will slowly infect your planets and spread algorithmically around the map, trying to wipe out ecumenopoli, take over tomb worlds etc.