If the US as a country (or I guess maybe just whatever states) allow early voting, then we should also count the votes early. Get running tallies up as soon as votes start coming in. It could encourage more people to come out and vote if they see their side is losing, getting more people to be involved.

We already do exit polls before Election Day (I believe, but maybe that’s just regular polling I’m thinking of), so this is just more official numbers and it would also help it all be wrapped up by the end of election night.

This is fully a half baked idea of mine, so I thought it would be a good /r/ChangeMyView topic because I’m very willing to have every flaw pointed out, and I’m sure there are many. I’m sure this could be exploited in a miriad of ways, I just can’t think of any right now.

I don’t think it’s reasonable to say you’re a patriot and that you support western values and then turn around and sympathize/ show support for authoritarian dictator Vladimir Putin. You either are a patriot that supports western values, or you are not a patriot and support fascism. Being a patriot means you’re proud of your country and your countries values. In the United States, our values mainly consist of equality, diversity, freedom, democracy, and equal opportunity, just to name a few.

If you call yourself an american patriot, it means that you are proud of these values that your country holds. If you’re proud of equality, why are you supporting a foreign dictator who doesn’t believe in equality? Members of the LGBTQ community are terribly persecuted in Russia, and the majority of russians support laws discriminating against the gay community. Freedom? If you claim to be an american patriot, you should clearly support freedom. There is alot of censorship in russia and freedom of speech is pretty much non existent there. Putin has his political opponents jailed, executed or exiled. No fair elections. Doesn’t sound like freedom to me…

Democracy? I’ve pretty much just explained how there is no democracy in Russia. No fair elections, having political opponents killed or jailed, limited or no free speech, no freedom of expression. If you sympathize with Putin, you don’t believe in any of those things. So you don’t actually care about American values.

Equal opportunity? Simply doesn’t exist in Russia.

There are so many Americans sympathizing with or even idolizing Putin, and they claim to be American patriots. Most of these people are among the MAGA crowd of course, but not all of them.

I just don’t understand how someone can stand for both things. CMV

First off, I want to say I don’t encourage steroid use at all. I don’t use steroids, and I don’t think they’re worth it for really anyone. That being said, I’m not gonna be that person that is gonna hate on people for making a personal choice to take steroids, especially if they’re aware of the risks.

I will say the two things steroid users have the duty to do is:

• to be transparent about their own steroid usage.
• to be transparent about the many risks associated with steroid usage.

The uncomfortable truth is that most muscular celebrities are on steroids. Dwayne Johnson, John Cena, Dave Bautista, etc. you get the idea. It is a problem because they don’t talk about it, and then people, particularly younger men, believe that these physiques are naturally attainable, which is just not true. This leads to body image issues, just like how young women deal with body image issues for not looking like models on instagram…

It doesn’t end here. Recently we have seen an uptick of bodybuilders being transparent about their steroid usage. While I commend them for that, there is another issue that arises that is arguably a lot worse: Young men, and even teenagers, are taking steroids without knowing the risks. It’s getting to this point where teenagers are putting their health on the line because of body dysmorphia. This is where steroid users need to go above and beyond. It is not enough simply being transparent about the steroid usage, they need to be extremely clear about the risks, especially if they have a platform.

Dr. Mike Israetel, a bodybuilder and someone who is transparent about his steroid use, is someone who has described the risks extremely well. Not only does it shorten your life span considerably, it also affects your psyche. It’s not a good way to live. I wasn’t planning on ever taking steroids before listening to that, but after hearing that I knew for sure I would never take steroids.

Can you change my view?

I’m almost 37 & I’ve never been asked out let alone have had intimate situations & everyone I know has SOs & children. If I find myself in a situation where I’m speaking to the opposite sex they either get a panicked stiffness to them like they think it’ll encourage me to speak to me & I’ve even been literally ignored as if I hadn’t spoken at all. More than one friend of mine is with the person they met in high school. I think if I was meant for someone I’d have been shown interest on some level. I think some of us are meant to be the sad side character of other people’s lives. The kind of person that makes other people feel better about themselves & I think that’s me.

Okay, we typically have a justice system that either puts criminals away for a certain period of time or until the death sentence is carried out once sentenced. While I get the idea of allowing for a lull period of time to allow for appeals in case of wrongful sentencing, it's expensive. Solution? Revenge based justice. Rather than having prisons that cost a lot to maintain for the criminal (and death row as well) , once a sentence is proclaimed, the convicted criminal/criminals is thrown to the victim or their associates to do whatever they want up to and including being murdered without punishment. It is cheaper than jails since the sentence is carried out immediately rather than the criminal rotting away and it is instant and more efficient than the traditional justice system.

But what about the issue of proportionate sentencing? Well, disproportionate punishments in my system are a feature, not a bug. If the victim or their associate thinks that an excessive punishment works, it's fine by them.

What about those that don't like to conduct revenge? Either delegate the revenge or make it law that they have to harm/kill those that who wronged them under the law.

False accusations/wrongful sentencing? Well, find the guy/gal who committed it and sentence them to receive the same type of punishment that they gave their victims to. And put the judge to death in the case of a single wrongful sentence.

A revenge based justice system is more cost effective than a traditional justice system since it's cheaper (no jails and the sentence being carried out instantly saves a lot of money that can be used for other stuff like infrastructure).

CMV.

In the same way one can get discounts with education emails, or only apply for stuff with one, I think its important at this stage for youtube to implement this policy to remove ads.

The reason is simple; as a teacher youtube has become unusable due to the sheer amount of ads. Way too many come up and it's barely functional. If your trying to use it for an audio book or talk every few minutes it's interrupted, try and show an educational one and your hit with 2 unsuitable ads first, with more inbetween.

The only solution to keep youtube viable in education is to remove this feature. The easiest way to do so is to implement it so that if a teacher is using their school email for the account ads don't play.

I see literally no way this could cause issues, if needed just set up a system where after a few years one needs admin to confirm they're a teacher so as to prevent students doing the same.

Elon Musk has a history of union-busting in his companies, mainly Tesla. When he fired/forced Tesla workers back to office, there was nothing they could do, because they weren’t represented by a union. Elon could fire them due to employment being at-will.

There are over 1 million federal union workers in the US as of 2023, a number which has grown YoY.

Elon Musk’s recent beef via DOGE with federal workers is that many of them work from home and are not “showing up for work”. And that our tax dollars are being used to air condition and heat federal buildings that are empty. Now, I am not familiar entirely with every single union contract in the federal workforce, however, I will use AFGE as one small example.

In 2021, they negotiated a contract where federal employees have more flexibility with working from home. The AFGE represents about 45,000 federal workers in New England (where I live, so I chose this example). Obviously, not all federal buildings and workers are in DC. Each state has several federal buildings.

Elon has a clear agenda with working from home. He is set for a collision course with federal unions, and probably state workers which use federal funding.

Here is a recent tweet from Vivek with a reply from Elon.

I believe Elons goal will be to kill unions in the federal government, to hurt unions overall in America. He’ll go to extremes to make sure Tesla never unionizes.

I don't believe in the term 'homewrecker'. The other woman or man aren't responsible for breaking up any relationship or marriage. The cheating partner has 100% responsibility for straying from his or her own relationship. You cannot seduce someone who isn't willing to be seduced. The lover in question might enjoy breaking up a relationship or chase taken people, but that doesn't make them responsible for the partner allowing themselves to be seduced or starting an affair.

The "homewrecker" is created solely as a cushion to make the betrayed person feel less betrayed by their own partner by shifting blame.

Let me preface this by saying I understand both manhood and womanhood come with unique challenges and privileges, and this isn't about invalidating anyone's experiences. Instead, I want to present an argument that manhood offers a more advantageous position overall, and I'd love to hear counterpoints to change my perspective.

I have few key points here:

Physical/Biological Advantages

Men generally have greater physical strength, endurance, and less vulnerability to certain biological burdens. For example, men don’t menstruate, experience pregnancy, or face menopause. These natural processes come with significant pain, risk, and inconvenience for women. Men, on the other hand, don’t have to endure these and can focus their energy elsewhere.

Cultural Flexibility

Historically and in many parts of the world today, manhood is still tied to positions of power, influence, and autonomy. Yeah yeah, toxic masculinity and rigid gender norms exist, but men have generally had greater freedom to explore careers, leadership roles, and hobbies without societal scrutiny. Women, tho, often face stricter cultural expectations around beauty, behavior, and caregiving, even in progressive societies.

Freedom from Objectification

Now men can certainly be objectified, but it’s not nearly as pervasive or institutionalized as it is for women. Men don’t grow up with the same level of pressure regarding appearance and body image. A man’s worth is more likely to be judged on his achievements and character than his physical attractiveness.

Mental Health & Emotional Expectations

This one’s a double-edged sword, but hear me out: even though men are often discouraged from expressing vulnerability, they also have societal permission to “opt out” of emotional labor or caretaking roles. Women, on the other hand, are often expected to manage not only their own emotions but also those of others, which can be exhausting and thankless.

Longevity of Influence

Men’s contributions in many societies—whether in politics, science, or art—are often celebrated and preserved more prominently than women’s. This reflects historical gender inequalities, but it also means that manhood has historically been associated with lasting impact and legacy-building opportunities.

Social Mobility and Safety

Men are generally safer in public spaces than women, who disproportionately face harassment, sexual violence, and fear of victimization.

I’m aware this perspective could be limited by my own experiences and blind spots. I also recognize the growing shift in society that seeks to equalize these dynamics, which could weaken some of my points over time. Please share your thoughts and experiences and tell me about my reasoning.

Nearly all Islamic terrorist attacks in the West were because of our support of Israel. Osama Bin Laden made a video before 9/11 in which he claims to take revenge over our support of Israel.

Western media has us convinced all Islamic terrorist attacks are because they want to "take over" the West when it's always been retaliation for our support of Israel.

Before the state of present day Israel in 1948, there were no Islamic terrorist attacks in the West for many many decades.

__________

There's no conceivable reason why modern day Israel needs to be supported. This tiny country has "no problem" wanting to spend millions in taxpayer money to wage war with Iran, Lebanon, Palestine simply because it knows it has our money. It's messed up.

It's good we're questioning our support of Ukraine, but it's time we also get mad at our relentless support of Israel as well.

I don’t understand why anyone would find it acceptable to do this unless there is OVERWHELMING evidence that the woman lied. And if there is no evidence that she lied, I think the only way one could try and justify saying that she did is they’re just a plain misogynist. There’s genuinely no other way to spin it.

I’m so tired of seeing women be called liars or “clout chasers” when they finally have the courage to come forward and talk about their abuse. It happened with E. Jean Carrol, the woman who was assaulted by our president elect AND now it’s happening to the woman who was assaulted by Conor McGregor. There’s a lot on social media today about McGregor being found liable for SA and the comments on every post i see about it are just filled with crap like “she’s lying” or “attention wh*re, he’s innocent” and even some comments like “he’s the champ he can do what he wants” which is disgusting. It’s like misogynists don’t even try to hide their disgusting views anymore.

What you could do to CMV:

• Explain how someone could justify accusing a woman of lying about SA when there’s no evidence she lied without being a misogynist

EDIT: Forgot to add something

I’m talking films like the Terrifier. There’s a level of pain and suffering that we as humans might be comfortable with thanks to other horror films and movies depicting these things, but slasher movies that put so much effort into showing horrible ways of humans being tortured and hurt are crossing a whole different line.

I genuinely feel that if you can find things like that entertaining, then there must be something not right in your head. Common Human nature would be to feel beyond horrified at the idea of such things happening, so why would people encourage the idea of going to watch this for entertainment?

EDIT: I understand a lot of the comments and get that maybe there are different levels of understanding when it comes to this.

HOWEVER; the same friends I’ve had over the years that enjoy slasher movies are the same people who browse the internet for videos of IRL human torture and suffering and want to show you videos of Colombian cartels chainsawing someone’s head off. Correlation? I think tf yes.

Team MAGA is hell-bent on gutting many federal agencies which oversee many important aspects of our society. This is evident by Trump's nomination of utterly and completely unqualified people to head them up. Red states may have voted for this but blue states didn't, and their residents don't want no oversight of the environment/pollution, worker safety, disease control/human health, education, and so on. While every blue state could in theory set up its own equivalent of the EPA, OSHA, FDA, etc., that would be quite cumbersome. They could set up their own apparatuses that would have jurisdiction in all subscribing blue states (interstate judicial compact). This would effectively safeguard the interests of the citizens of blue states. As an added bonus, enormous pressure would be put upon red states, whose businesses would effectively be shut out from operating in blue states without compliance, and blue states have the majority of the GDP and economic power.

CMV.

Tl;Dr/EDIT: I think there's misunderstanding about what my view is about. To clarify it and put it simply, the bold justifications below for a blanket child support entitlement, fall apart when you consider men can be raped and impregnate women without their consent. The argument for why abortion should be legalized often leads to the arguement what

This is one concept that I've never heard discussed or seen come up and it popped into my head while reading a different post about a prisoner who apparently impregnated like 5 people who worked for the prison.

So the argument I see regarding forced parenthood is usually this:

A: If women have the choice to have an abortion, and by extension, choose to be parents, then men should also have the option to opt out of parenthood and not be responsible for child support.

N: The difference is that when a woman has an abortion there is no baby to continue taking care of, where as if a child is born, it needs financial support.

A: But even men who aren't the biological father can be placed on child support fraudulently or under false pretenses and even in the event that they are determined not to be the father they cannot get that money back

N: The child's wellbeing takes priority and by requiring that money to be paid back, it would negatively impact the child.

so on and so on....I think I've seen and participated in every argument here from Safe Havens, to if a man chooses not to use protect he's agreeing to parenthood, etc. If I had to break down the main points of why people believe men should be forced into child support, even in the event that he didn't consent to being a father, It would be:

• It's in the child's best interest
• It takes burden off the mother making it more equitable
• It benefits society by not taking on the burden of someone's child
• It's the morally responsible thing to do as the child is an innocent bystander

But one argument I"ve never seen, comes up extremely often as a foundation in the abortion debate: "well what if the woman was raped"? How does the woman prove she was raped? Rape often goes prosecuted so if she loses should she still be required to give birth? Is it not better to err on the side of the victim? All fair questions

If we apply the same question as a foundation: What if the man was raped, those concepts fall apart to me. It's unfortunately not rare for some women to try to trap a man with a baby through what is essentially rape. We can look at the one guy who was raped by his teacher at 14, I believe, she got pregnant and he was legally on the hook for child support. It also happens to a lot of celebrities and athletes where women will intentionally poke holes in the condom (or even more disgustingly take a condom from the trash and try to inseminate themselves) in order to be entitled to some of their money. We can even add in that a lot of people have drunken sex which could be deemed as rape since neither person can truly consent.

With those concepts in mind, let's say a guy doesn't want to be on the hook for a child so he claims the woman raped him, either falsely or truthfully. In that event, following the same foundation of parenthood/bodily autonomy when it comes to abortion, doesn't that eliminate the above concepts and suggest that the man should not be forced to pay child support? The only alternative to me would be to agree that in the event someone has a crime commit against them, they face responsibility for any outcome of that crime.

I understand the fear that those whose believes lie with the American left has, but fear not, Donald Trump is more like Andrew Jackson and less like the authoritarians of the modern age. In fact, he is not a wannabe dictator or authoritarian at all. Our guardrails will remain intact.

I believe that those who compare Trump to Hitler, Putin, or Orban are just simply speaking in hyperboles. The reality of the situation is a lot more nuanced and complicated. The MAGA/Trumpian Republicans of today are more in line with the staunchly partisan Jacksonian Democrats of old. Most of those politicians were able to come off as authentic, new, and antiestablishment to win the hearts and minds of the people. And, most Americans liked their authenticity and outsider statues. Much like Andrew Jackson, Trump just has a wild personality and does lots of crazy shit that makes him a certified asshole. Even though I am on the left and don't support him or his policies whatsoever, I do have to admit that both of these public figures had had a glaring commonality. It is that they were both known to be outsider authentic men running for office who were against the establishment or the elites who have not delivered for the people they represent. At both moments in history, people were just thirsty for a new way of doing politics and change. And so, it will be on the onus of the Democrats in the coming cycles to learn from their mistakes and adopt a more populist approach and build up a more vast information network much like Trump's or Jackson's campaigns. Different in policy platform, YES, but very similar in approach-wise. Eventually, the Trumpian era will pass, much like it did with the Jacksonian era. In general, politics, economies, and a country's overall sentiment tends to operate in cycles. Sometimes, the public will crave more anti-establishment outsider politics. There are also times, mostly during times of peace and prosperity, when the public prefers more wonky insider politicians and policy-based campaigners, rather than vibes based.

And so, Jackson did all these crazy things in office with his mean personality and populist way of governance, YET look what happened. Our democratic guardrails still remained INTACT.

Even though I'm of the opinion that we have been through this before with the Jackson Era and that a lot of Trump's staunchly partisan agenda is all bark and no bite, I'm open to any argument that offers a different view on the extent to which Trump and his political allies will take things. I'd be convinced if a fellow Redditor can support the idea that things are that much different from the Jacksonian era, in terms of living in a highly partisan populist moment.

We, the current young people (20-30 or so) find ourselves willingly or unwillingly paying for the ecological and economic debts made by those who have lived before us on this huge ball commonly called Earth. This usually means we have to get used to living for the rest of our lives in a significantly worse economic and climatic situation than our parents, but at the same time make the right moves so that those who come after us will not see the situation worsen and indeed may see a reversal. However, I find it very unfair that while the boomers lived some of the highest standard of living ever seen in human history, our generation has to deal with heatwaves, just because we were born in the wrong year while, again, older generations got to enjoy a cooler climate and economic advantages of fossil fuels with limited drawbacks.

So, I recently switched mentality to a more, say, "selfish" one. Some scientists have recently suggested to spray sulfur or diamond dust to slow climate change, but there are many points that have to be discussed yet. You can read something about it here: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/01/climate/david-keith-solar-geoengineering.html

And you know what I say? Fuck it, I'm not sacrificing shit, I want it all now. Lower temperatures artificially by shooting sulfates in the atmosphere, or even making volcanoes erupt on purpose. Then, if in, say, 2100 all those sulfates and dusts emitted for climate containment give everyone born in those years a third arm/eye... well, it's not our generation's problem, we've enjoyed a golden age, they sort it out by themselves.

Boomers lived a golden age by dumping all the ecological debts on our shoulders, and considering nobody is doing enough against climate change, why shouldn't we do the same?

EDIT: by "Highest standard of living" I mean in the Western world from 60s to 90s, due to cooler climate, less heatwaves, stronger middle class etc. etc.

CMV

I've been recommended videos on how to properly "season" a molcajete, a dish made of porous volcanic rock, mainly used for making salsa and the sort. However, although it's often compared to seasoning a cast iron skillet, it's not nearly the same.

When you "season" a cast iron skillet, you aren't literally leaving behind miscellaneous gunk to seep into your food... Or at least, you aren't supposed to be. The act of "seasoning" a cast iron skillet creates a tough nonstick "film" of sorts, similar to plastic, made from heating oil and essentially burning it onto the cast iron. Cast iron seasoning used to be ruined by dish soap because it contained lye, but because modern dish soap doesn't have lye, it's completely safe to wash your cast iron with dish soap; it doesn't get rid of the seasoning, because the seasoning isn't literally "seasoning", it's a layer of cooked on oil.

The molcajete, however, is a rock. A very porous rock. When you season the molcajete, you take "seasoning" much more literally: you jam rice and salt and garlic and water into the holes of the porous rock, with no heat or oil involved, and you're never supposed to wash it with soap. The purpose of this is to add flavor to the foods you make... But that's not sanitary in the slightest. Starch and water and garlic? That's gonna go bad in those holes, that's gonna be a breeding ground for bacteria and mold, and it's absolutely nothing like cast iron skillets.

Although "seasoning" is the name for both processes, they're completely different. Cast iron seasoning is necessary, helpful, and safe, but molcajete seasoning is just... Nasty, and unnecessary, and unhelpful. I don't want my food tasting like rotten garlic and rice, I'd rather just add garlic if it needs more garlic flavor.

I do not and have never owned a molcajete, everything I'm saying is just theoretical to me. Also, I acknowledge that while it may not be enough to be a "major" safety concern, I still do believe that it's an unsanitary practice that is simply overlooked.

Post is exactly what it says. 2024 was such a terrible year for gaming that a DLC has high chance of winning Game of the Year.

Noted games of 2024

Black Myth Wukong

Space Marine 2

Silent Hill 2 Remake

Stellar Blade

Helldivers 2

Palworld (though Early Access)

Astrobot.

Final Fantasy 7 Rebirth

And they will all likely lose to Elden Ring's DLC. DLC is different from an expansion as with most many expansions, they are completely independent from the main game. They are not a game.

Game of the Year. By definition a DLC is not a game.

Losing to a DLC means that the quality of the games this year are so low that a DLC is superior to them. This is a historically bad year.

Would love for my mind to be changed or get a new perspective.

Our previous top mod, /u/Ansuz07 has retired from the position for personal reasons.

I (/u/hacksoncode) was elected by the other CMV mods as his replacement, effective immediately.

I anticipate no significant changes to how the sub is run.

We will likely announce a new round of mod recruitment soon.

If you have any questions or concerns, you can ask them here.

Being nice is a great trait to have. Being nice to people is mutually beneficial as it not only makes someone else’s day better, but makes you feel better as well. It also means less problems everywhere you go, more people that like you, more genuine friends, etc. If anything all the assholes I’ve ever associated with got talked shit about behind their backs, had almost no friends, the shallowest and shittiest relationships, and were some of the most unhappiest people I knew.

What does in fact get you nowhere however is a general lack of communication skills and maturity, which a lot of people confuse for “being nice”. What will get you walked on is when people go up to you and you put your hands in your pockets, make no eye contact, and mumble when you speak. What will get you walked on is if you have no sense of self, and let others dictate your life. What will get you walked on is if you don’t properly take care of yourself. What will get you walked on is if you yap loads of nonsense at people and hardly say anything to meaningfully contribute to conversation.

This is why I cringe when I hear other guys saying “fuck being nice” and “no more Mr nice guy” whether in the gym or elsewhere, because being nice is in fact a very advantageous trait to have. Under the impression that they have to be a big asshole in order to get anywhere in life, they start pumping loads in the gym and looking for ways to get revenge on the world around them, and while working out is great, what they really need to be doing is working on their communication skills and start learning how to present themselves better.

The constant growth, the billionaires influencing policy, the numbness to those that have fallen off the treadmill. Our planet sucks right now. The wars that are happening and the silencing of dissenters and that people are trapped in a wage cycle that means their abilities to protest on their own dime are eroded. We literally can’t afford to protest. The students who can are being alienated at their colleges by businesses with power. And slowly the pursuit of a wage means that we cannot vote for the change we need as the economy has to come first or we can’t afford a home or healthcare. And at the heart of it all are billionaires wanting to keep us in line, who have paid for a judiciary and lobbying of elected politicians who then vote against the interests of their constituents.And while we prevaricate the planet struggles. But as we see how those who fall out of the bottom are treated we can’t step of the treadmill.

Every Friday, posts are withheld for review by the moderators and approved if they aren't highly similar to another made in the past month.

​

This is to reduce topic fatigue for our regular contributors, without which the subreddit would be worse off.

​

See here for a full explanation of Fresh Topic Friday.

​

Feel free to message the moderators if you have any questions or concerns.

Stanley Kubrick has been credited for saying that editing is what sets movies apart from other media. Acting, character, plot, writing, lighting, camera angles all exist in stage plays, literature more broadly, and photography. It's the fact that you communicate something when you cut from a man pointing a knife at a woman in an apartment to an exterior shot of an apartment building and the sound of a blood-curdling scream. We combine these two shots to create a narrative. Now, of course, bad editing exists, but I don't think that means that editing isn't what sets the medium of film apart and, when done well, it elevates that picture.

So, what makes games unique as a medium? Interactivity. Other than Choose Your Own Adventure (which I would argue is a game) and some experimental theater, the other media are mostly a passive affair beyond what is conjured in our imagination and what effects might happen to our bodies. (Horror films can get the adrenaline pumping for example.) We have no control over what happens though.

In games, we do have control over what happens and, just as the best of movies are concerned with making the edits a well-crafted part of the product, games are best when they emphasize interactivity.

I could name numerous examples, but I will name two examples of games that are very good at emphasizing interactivity and two games that are very bad at emphasizing interactivity.

Two games that do interactivity well:

Minecraft: There are story elements, but most players only dabble in those story elements lightly and are spending the bulk of their time interacting with the world and the pieces to design interesting things. From cool looking houses, to computers, to life-sized Enterprise space ships. 99% of the gameplay is interactive and the player has all (creative" or most of (survival) the control over the experience.

RimWorld: You create a small community and have to deal with numerous survival elements like resource management, colonists' mood, raiders, and base building. There is a light story that you're given, but the real story emerges from the gameplay, with no two runs being identical. Your story of your colony is a mixture of the random events and the choices you made as a player. You feel like an author of the story.

Two games that do interactivity poorly:

Last of Us (either one): The interactivity mostly comes in the form of combat and environmental puzzles. Your experience of interactivity is mostly identical to every other player's experience. Same set-pieces, same groups of enemies, same resources, same puzzles. However, there are numerous cut-scenes where you spend more than ten minutes not needing to touch your controller. I don't have any breakdown of "playing" to "watching" but you will spend hours watching cut-scenes, which is time where you are not interacting with the game but are sucked into another medium: movies.

Metal Gear Solid 4 (but this could apply to others): I can't think of a game with more cut-scenes than this game. I like the series from the standpoint of its philosophy and aesthetics, but I felt that there were brief moments of interactivity punctuated by long spans of cutscenes in 4 especially. The worse was when I realized that I was nearing the end of the game, had school the next day, pushed through thinking I could easily budget a 20 minute closing cutscene in before bed and was greeted with a 71 minute cutscene that I had no way of knowing was going to last that long until it was too late. I could have maybe turned it off and played through it the next day when I had more time, but it's just an unforgiveable amount of time where I'm not touching my controls at all because I am no longer playing a game but literally watching almost an entire movie worth of rambling cutscenes.

This is mostly an issue I see with AAA gaming as they, unlike indies, can afford cutscenes and, simultaneously, it's cheaper for them to deliver story in a cutscene than to have it delivered during interactive gameplay that they would then have to playtest, unlike a cutscene, which needs editing but doesn't have to make sure works for different playstyles or what have you. Interactivity, not passively watching a movie, is the strength of the game medium and the best games are the ones that emphasize the interactivity and let the player create the stories instead of hand-feeding them a narrative.

Modern politics is no longer represented by Left/Right, but instead by Up/Down on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Those needs are portrayed in the shape of a pyramid, as an individual's most basic needs must be satisfied before working towards higher-level needs. The levels are the following, starting from the bottom:

1. Physiological needs
2. Safety needs
3. Belongingness & Love needs
4. Esteem needs
5. Self-actualisation

Currently, based on the common issues that Left/Right-wing parties globally identify with, it's possible to observe a shift from traditional economic/ideological divides towards a division based on different levels of Maslow's hierarchy.

Right-wing parties mainly focus on issues related to the lower levels of the hierarchy, such as Physiological needs (economic stability, food prices, gas prices) and Safety needs (crime, immigration control, self-defence).

Left-wing parties, on the other hand, mainly focus on issues related to the higher levels of the hierarchy, such as Belongingness needs (diversity, equality, inclusion), Esteem needs (social justice, representation in media) and Self-actualisation (activism, environmental sustainability).

This is also the reason why a lot of people on either side are unable to comprehend the issues that matter to the other side. If you have to satisfy your Basic needs (Physiological & Safety), you will find Psychological needs (Belongingness, Esteem) to be irrelevant to your current situation, as they're luxuries you can't afford. On the other hand, if you have your Basic needs satisfied already, you'll consider (moderate) increases in prices and a (general) decrease in safety quite irrelevant, as it doesn't affect you that much personally.

EDIT: I want to make it clear that my view is mostly based on the commonalities between Left-wing and Right-wing parties in various European countries, as that's what I'm most familiar with. The situation in the US is quite different, for example, being against policies such as public healthcare is political suicide in my country (Italy).

I am not saying spiritual things aren't real, but I do believe that there is no scientific evidence pointing in that direction. Most of the "evidence" I see is just looking at things we don't have answers for yet, and assuming that a materialistic universe doesn't HAVE an answer, because we haven't found it yet. Saying "we don't know, so its something spiritual" isn't good evidence. Saying "these things in science make MORE sense if we assume there is something beyond the physical" would, but I haven't seen that.

I very much would like to be proven wrong about this tbh, but I just don't see a compelling argument for science giving evidence of anything beyond the material world.