tables

Boring answer, but I play on the PC exclusively. When I'm not playing, I'm usually already using the PC for other stuff, so it's a faster switch than jumping to some other device. I thought about getting a Steam Deck for a while, but I gravitate so much towards the PC that I think I'd probably put it down after a while.

There's usually "routine" games I'll play during the week when I have little time - which are usually games that are unlikely to receive any big updates - and I'll leave new games to moments when I know I can sit down for a long while without worries.

The PC I use for gaming is practically only a gaming box, though. I don't tinker with it nearly as much as I used to. And I've started using a controller more, when that's an option.

I'd say yes, not necessarily because of the story ties, but because there's progression in the gameplay itself. So playing the second one after the first one will feel like an upgrade in gameplay. Whereas if you decide to play this one right now and at the end you're left wanting for more, going back to the first one might feel like a slight downgrade (even though I love it as well).

I get what you mean. My pet peeve is more with "real life" people. I don't spend that much time on Lemmy anymore because, well, in a lot of ways it's a lot like the worst parts of Reddit. And, in general, I've started to notice that "internet opinions" hardly ever represent what I see when I talk to real life people. So I tend to not care much about anything coming out of Lemmy, Reddit, Twitter, etc, as I find it's often the loud very tiny minority.

But I have the habit of reading opinion pieces on a couple of national newspapers, and I've noticed the "you're an anti-semite if you disagree with me" pattern a lot. Most opinion pieces by usually left leaning political writers have been more level headed than I actually expected them to be - in the sense that there's a couple of them who usually hold far more extreme positions on pretty much everything else and have been surprisingly "center" on this issue. Whereas on the right, a few people who I would say are usually fairly moderate and level headed have gone hard on the "the left actually hates jews, they don't care about civilians" trope. And it's very confusing to me because I have yet to find any actual left leaning person who's any relevant in my country's political scene actively sharing that discourse. So it all feels like baseless deflection. It was the kind of behavior I expected out of Reddit - it's been the case for years I feel that in most bigger subreddits any critique of Israel's government would immediately make you an honorary anti-semite. Though that seems to have changed a bit after we entered the "Bibi is trying to turn Israel into a dictatorship" arc and he's not seen as the savior of Israel anymore. But it weirds me out to see these talking points coming out of real life political commentators who I would usually expect to be at least somewhat level headed. In general, with exceptions from the usual crazies and outside places like Twitter, I have yet to find the big leftist pro-Hamas discourse everyone seems to pretend is all around.

It’s why I happily soak up the downvotes all the time from the pro-Hamas crowd on here.

The second part of this sentence is likely why you're downvoted. The whole "everyone who disagress with me is pro-Hamas / anti-semitic" is tiring, disingenuous, shoves aside any possible good faith discussion, and I'd argue it's actually destructive as it muddies the definition of these terms. Anti-semite specifically is a term I don't think people should be throwing around willy nilly, but by this point, 99% of the time I see it used in online discourse it describes someone who doesn't think mass civilian bombings are OK, and maybe 1% actual anti-semites. It's basically the right wing version of some "leftists" calling people fascists for having the slightest right of center opinion.

I usually either scroll past any mention of these or downvote and move on because it's too tiring to devote time to people who, most of the time, are arguing in bad faith.

but they just waited for years

Israel destroys Gaza tower housing AP and Al Jazeera offices - 2021

Israel Bombs Hospital and UN Building - 2019

'The world stands disgraced' - Israeli shelling of school kills at least 15 - 2014

You can Google for "Israel bombs", limit the results to whatever range of years you want, and you'll find plenty of these. Throughout the years there's been areas of Gaza that haven't even had time to rebuild before they're being bombed again. Searching for "UN condems Israel" is another great one. It's almost funny how many times a country can be condemned for war crimes by the UN without any actual repercussions against that countries' government, as long as they're "allies". Is this what you call "waiting for years"?

He was in the opensuse board of directors at some point I think. I knew him from his Youtube channel that talked about Linux and related topics, it was fairly popular in the Linux community for a while. I mostly watched it for Linux related news and technical opinions. A bit after he left that position, he started occasionally mentioning how now that he wasn't representing opensuse anymore he could finally "speak freely". That's when the channel started taking a weird turn.

At first he started going on weird political tangents while doing the whole "I don't talk about politics" thing. Some videos started popping up where he would attack some person or organization for what seemed to be mostly political reasons, but under the guise of his reasoning being purely technical.

Eventually, he just started sounding like someone who fell into a conspiracy rabbit hole, or some weird far right cult. I stopped watching then, most of his videos by then had little technical interest anymore and they sounded more like someone who was losing their mind. I don't know if it's a mental issue or something, but his whole persona shifted dramatically into something... weird. I haven't kept up in the mean time, though.

I recently played Metro Exodus and I felt like it was a drag at the beginning of the game instead. It was one of the few times in my life in which 1 hour into the game I was so bored I was googling whether the game would eventually get going and become fun. The story "twist" at the beginning felt extremely rushed and out of nowhere and it sort of put me off. But as the game got going I got very into it and I was the one "dragging" it by doing every secondary objective.

I've been playing Cities Skylines a lot - got pulled back in with all the talk about the new one - and also Going Under.

Going Under is one of those games I bought a while ago because it seemed fun, played for a bit, got my ass kicked more than what I was used to with roguelites and stopped for a while. I started playing it again recently and think it finally made sense to me. Looking back, I probably wasn't paying much attention to the game the first time I tried it because I didn't understand there was an indication for weapon damage on different weapons - which made weapon choice feel random - and I also didn't understand how the mentor system worked - which is a big part of the strategy of the game. I've been having a lot of fun with it now, though.

I tried to play the original System Shock two/three years ago but gave up at a stage that felt very close to the end. I basically had a save at a weird spot, when I was low on ammo and anything else useful, right between two complicated rooms. I reloaded a ton of times and always died trying to go forwards or backwards before giving up.

Anyway, would you recommend System Shock Remaster for someone who likely almost completed the original one, gave up, but still liked it overall? Or is there something shockingly different about the original's ending I'll be missing?

On another note, I was checking out some of your sources so I could learn further and I noticed the source for flights per capita (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/air-trips-per-capita) isn't actually measuring flights per national individual, only flights inside a country, without accounting for who's flying in them.

The figure was odd to me as I was wondering how portuguese people could be flying this much - you'd think we're all making top dollar here haha.

It's only natural that countries that mostly rely on tourism (such as Portugal where tourism is king over every other sector of the economy) have a big number of flights. Switzerland is a great example as well - it also has a high number of flights despite having a knowingly very good transport system. I'd hazard it's mostly not the swiss contributing to that stat.

Continuing...

And at least for gas taxes there certainly is an alternative without large changes that is especially viable for non city-dwellers: electric cars. While still too expensive, they are much cheaper than even 5 years ago.

The cheapest electric car I know of in Portugal is the Dacia Spring for around 20000€ - 20X the average portuguese salary. A used Zoe goes for around 12000€. As comparison, the Dacia Spring costs 15800€ in France, only 9X the current minimum wage. Electric cars are talked about in Portugal as cars for the rich - though a lot of the "rich" upper crust of portuguese earners (the low top 15%) is only middle or low-middle class by the standards of neighboring countries (an interesting piece by a portuguese economist on that - https://www.publico.pt/2023/08/18/opiniao/opiniao/classe-media-politico-quiser-2060528).

The price of electric cars has ironically been increasing fast in Portugal. I remember the Spring was around 16000€ at launch.

The last point is entirely ridiculous: The Netherlands certainly isn’t known for cheap trains and france is the opposite of a train every 10 minutes (especially outside paris), with often large multi-hour gaps between TGV connections from many cities. Most people in other european countries fly much less than people in Portugal or Spain (...)

I mean... yes? That's my whole point. As an anecdote, students in Portugal going on an interrail are usually told to fly to somewhere in the center of Europe and start it there, so they can do it cheaper and better, and then fly back. It's natural that with better rail infrastructure, people don't use flights as much. I wouldn't get in a plane or car if I had the option. I didn't take a drivers' license while I lived in Porto. When I was forced to move out tough, I got one. Outside of that and Lisbon, it's car trips mostly as it's often the only option. I didn't even know what a TGV was until I rode one in Italy. Check the timetables for an intercity train in Portugal - it manages to be simultaneously slow, with large time gaps and expensive prices when adjusted for salaries.

Flying is one of the few climate related things where the only foreseeable “solution” is a reduction.

I very much agree. We should work to stop most - if not almost all - flights inside Europe, or at least when the destinations are internal or between neighboring countries. But I also think we should remember that countries in the EU are at incredibly different stages in terms of economy and buying power.

The EU's major plan for combined train infrastructure has been halted by France for around 10 years, because they desperately wanted to prevent english from being chosen as the main language for train conductors - though I've just checked and that decision has finally been approved in may, apparently (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12109253/Train-drivers-EU-countries-speak-English-new-rules-Brussels.html).

I applaud France's new found enthusiasm for saving the planet, I wish they hadn't spent the last few years boycotting EU decisions to prop up its train infrastructure.

People in poorer countries get to have "leisure" as well. These types of blanket decisions only seem to further the already existing and increasing anti EU sentiment in countries like mine and periphery countries in general.

(...) flying is very obviously a big-city thing. Inhabitants of big cities fly much more because (...)" etc..

... assuming there is an alternative. If there is no viable alternative infrastructure other than the airport, you get a flight.

In general poor people fly very little, which is also the case in Germany (...)

I already addressed this. Quote: "The poorest are already not travelling, sure, but making travelling even more expensive is going to stop a whole lot more people from doing it."

Making prices higher naturally incentivizes other transports, when those exist. If flight prices increase by much I'll just... mostly stop going anywhere honestly. Ironically, I'm not "poor" by portuguese standards. I just earn around the average portuguese salary - which is below minimum wage in all neighboring countries. Do only the poorest of the poorest count?

Portugal is itself mostly responsible for its transportation network and (...)

It is, in part, if we ignore European obligations often forcing our hand. It should still not be France mandating minimum prices across all of Europe, which is what the article we're all talking about mentions.

Trains (and transport infrastructure in general) are actually one of those cases where smaller countries get shafted - not on purpose, but by the sheer size of the country and their economy - mostly because of having less budget to work with. We're often paying outside companies to build our train infrastructure and the trains themselves, paying their prices adjusted for their salaries and costs - which ends up ridiculous for us. That doesn't happen with roads, which was why roads were often the focus of large infrastructure spending in Portugal - we could do it with national companies paying national (very low) salaries - so costs were fairly low in comparison to train infrastructure. And those investments mostly happened 20/30 years ago, when trains weren't really all that popular. Since then we've mostly made on investments on anything really.

A great example is the - supposedly - soon to be portuguese TGV. The government has already basically admitted that the construction costs for the whole thing will be large enough that it'll be impossible for the state to cover it, so it'll mostly end up being done with public - private partnerships. The arrangement will likely involve private companies assisting the state in paying for the whole thing, in exchange of the state having to pay a fee for around 50 years for every train that crosses certain parts of the line. The state will then pass on that cost to train operators - TL:DR, tickets will probably be very expensive for the first 50 or so years to account for that.

While just looking at the cp website it seems that prices are pretty low compared to germany or france. Similarly for hostels it seems porto and lissabon are cheaper than many less touristy cites like lyon, toulouse, cologne, genoa, … right now.

Prices for trains are only "cheap" if you look exclusively to suburban trains which only cover territory around Porto and Lisbon. Look at intercity or regional trains and the prices suddenly get much higher. And that's without adjusting for salaries. Only 15% of portuguese make the equivalent of the French minimum wage (post-EDIT - actually even less, I didn't know the minimum wage in France had increased). If you look at stats for young people alone, only 3% make over that (https://poligrafo.sapo.pt/fact-check/apenas-3-dos-jovens-em-portugal-ganham-mais-de-1600-euros-por-mes). Account for the salary difference (even without counting taxes) and portuguese transport prices become much less friendly.

I just can’t imagine it being cheaper to fly outside of portugal for vacations based on those prices.

It is. I'm not going the extra length to prove it to you considering I've spent my life min maxing for prices every vacation I took, but if you want compare going from Porto to Lisbon, staying in Lisbon and returning for a weekend in october, for example, versus Madrid, for example. You can do the same for a lot of smaller european cities. It's ironic in a way, but I hardly know Lisbon.