I have the laser rail gun and a lot of high cell, haven't tested how good it is yet, should I go for a bfg machine gun or just use a heavy laser one?
What are the best small mount options?
How hard are the last three missions, do I do runs against the sink hole. Should I go for a mog? What about the rounder chasis how would you even move that?
I read it a few years back after a bunch of people really hyped it up and the world building has all these fundamental problems with it. I'm totally open to the fact there was something I missed, but everyone I've talked about it with never really addresses these arguments and sort of just tells me I'm wrong. I get people liked the text, I'm not a teenager and I don't feel the need to make someone not enjoy a thing, but it's always been good to sit with a few things at once, you're growing if it feels a bit uncomfortable at first.
With that in mind if this or the following rears your hackles up it's totally fine to have that feeling, half the reason I'm posting this is to see exactly why people have those feelings along with the last time you read the book, I'm not here to say don't have fun because certain things might not hold up the way you thought.
So then is it supposed to be a hypothetical, why is one of the moons far worse off, it's no longer a fair comparison and your sort of just shorting through noise for the authors thoughts, was it never supposed to be, was that a sacrifice to fit it in the series, or does she just not know how to do this stuff?
Why did she assume anarchists couldn't produce massive projects? We have plenty of ruins from prehistory built by egalitarian societies today we would call anarchist, infact the first cities were egalitarian. On the moon they also have easy space flight and specialists and complex logistics, with a society and police so utterly unbelievably well organized that no one died, even accidentally for the majority of the time that society has existed.
How do the capitalists actually still build anything? Their society is much further along than ours, but they still can make enough missiles to fight a wars, and it doesn't cost a sqaudrillian dollars to make a bridge like it does in the first world today. Marx wrote about financialization, about how one day you would be able to make more money just on the stock market then you could if you actually made a well run business buying, selling and making things with that same amount of money just like right now.
Finally why do the women cover themselves up? In most radical movements people wear far less clothing, not more, and the only time that isn't true is when it's appearance control being done because the society is a cult. to add to that in societies where nudity is common place no part of the body is inherently sexualized, and so it becomes contextual giving people far more control of themselves and how they appear.
With all this stuff in mind and going over it I feel like I could certainly find more if I read it again knowing what I know now, when I look at an art piece I want to be rewarded for thinking about it for days on end, I want to care about all the little things the author cared about too, and this stuff is culturally important, no one can fully separate art from reality, look at all the trans people Psycho killed.
When you write something unlike whatever currently exists it's your job to be good at making assumptions x to y to z, it's about knowing how to let go, when to bite bullets how to change up all the big patterns while keeping most of the little ones intact, her work just sort of seems shoddy. From reading about her she comes across as one of those arts who just likes and feels a bunch of stuff and golomps it together. Maybe I would feel differently now, but I don't really remember the characters or prose and that's not a good sign, I remember Mark Watney and AM and I read the Martian as a little kid. I appreciate anyone who disagrees with me and read this far . . What am I missing here?
I read it a few years back after a bunch of people really hyped it up and the world building has all these fundamental problems with it. I'm totally open to the fact there was something I missed, but everyone I've talked about it with never really addresses these arguments and sort of just tells me I'm wrong. I get people liked the text, I'm not a teenager and I don't feel the need to make someone not enjoy a thing, but it's always been good to sit with a few things at once, you're growing if it feels a bit uncomfortable at first.
With that in mind if this or the following rears your hackles up it's totally fine to have that feeling, half the reason I'm posting this is to see exactly why people have those feelings along with the last time you read the book, I'm not here to say don't have fun because certain things might not hold up the way you thought.
So then is it supposed to be a hypothetical, why is one of the moons far worse off, it's no longer a fair comparison and your sort of just shorting through noise for the authors thoughts, was it never supposed to be, was that a sacrifice to fit it in the series, or does she just not know how to do this stuff?
Why did she assume anarchists couldn't produce massive projects? We have plenty of ruins from prehistory built by egalitarian societies today we would call anarchist, infact the first cities were egalitarian. On the moon they also have easy space flight and specialists and complex logistics, with a society and police so utterly unbelievably well organized that no one died, even accidentally for the majority of the time that society has existed.
How do the capitalists actually still build anything? Their society is much further along than ours, but they still can make enough missiles to fight a wars, and it doesn't cost a sqaudrillian dollars to make a bridge like it does in the first world today. Marx wrote about financialization, about how one day you would be able to make more money just on the stock market then you could if you actually made a well run business buying, selling and making things with that same amount of money just like right now.
Finally why do the women cover themselves up? In most radical movements people wear far less clothing, not more, and the only time that isn't true is when it's appearance control being done because the society is a cult. to add to that in societies where nudity is common place no part of the body is inherently sexualized, and so it becomes contextual giving people far more control of themselves and how they appear.
With all this stuff in mind and going over it I feel like I could certainly find more if I read it again knowing what I know now, when I look at an art piece I want to be rewarded for thinking about it for days on end, I want to care about all the little things the author cared about too, and this stuff is culturally important, no one can fully separate art from reality, look at all the trans people Psycho killed.
When you write something unlike whatever currently exists it's your job to be good at making assumptions x to y to z, it's about knowing how to let go, when to bite bullets how to change up all the big patterns while keeping most of the little ones intact, her work just sort of seems shoddy. From reading about her she comes across as one of those arts who just likes and feels a bunch of stuff and golomps it together. Maybe I would feel differently now, but I don't really remember the characters or prose and that's not a good sign, I remember Mark Watney and AM and I read the Martian as a little kid. What am I missing here?
I read it a few years back after a bunch of people really hyped it up and the world building has all these fundamental problems with it. I'm totally open to the fact there was something I missed, but everyone I've talked about it with never really addresses these arguments and sort of just tells me I'm wrong. I get people liked the text, I'm not a teenager and I don't feel the need to make someone not enjoy a thing, but it's always been good to sit with a few things at once, you're growing if it feels a bit uncomfortable at first.
With that in mind if this or the following rears your hackles up it's totally fine to have that feeling, half the reason I'm posting this is to see exactly why people have those feelings along with the last time you read the book, I'm not here to say don't have fun because certain things might not hold up the way you thought.
So then is it supposed to be a hypothetical, why is one of the moons far worse off, it's no longer a fair comparison and your sort of just shorting through noise for the authors thoughts, was it never supposed to be, was that a sacrifice to fit it in the series, or does she just not know how to do this stuff?
Why did she assume anarchists couldn't produce massive projects? We have plenty of ruins from prehistory built by egalitarian societies today we would call anarchist, infact the first cities were egalitarian. On the moon they also have easy space flight and specialists and complex logistics, with a society and police so utterly unbelievably well organized that no one died, even accidentally for the majority of the time that society has existed.
How do the capitalists actually still build anything? Their society is much further along than ours, but they still can make enough missiles to fight a wars, and it doesn't cost a sqaudrillian dollars to make a bridge like it does in the first world today. Marx wrote about financialization, about how one day you would be able to make more money just on the stock market then you could if you actually made a well run business buying, selling and making things with that same amount of money just like right now.
Finally why do the women cover themselves up? In most radical movements people wear far less clothing, not more, and the only time that isn't true is when it's appearance control being done because the society is a cult. to add to that in societies where nudity is common place no part of the body is inherently sexualized, and so it becomes contextual giving people far more control of themselves and how they appear.
With all this stuff in mind and going over it I feel like I could certainly find more if I read it again knowing what I know now, when I look at an art piece I want to be rewarded for thinking about it for days on end, I want to care about all the little things the author cared about too, and this stuff is culturally important, no one can fully separate art from reality, look at all the trans people Psycho killed.
When you write something unlike whatever currently exists it's your job to be good at making assumptions x to y to z, it's about knowing how to let go, when to bite bullets how to change up all the big patterns while keeping most of the little ones intact, her work just sort of seems shoddy. From reading about her she comes across as one of those arts who just likes and feels a bunch of stuff and golomps it together. Maybe I would feel differently now, but I don't really remember the characters or prose and that's not a good sign, I remember Mark Watney and AM and I read the Martian as a little kid. What am I missing here?
I read it a few years back after a bunch of people really hyped it up and the world building has all these fundamental problems with it. I'm totally open to the fact there was something I missed, but everyone I've talked about it with never really addresses these arguments and sort of just tells me I'm wrong. I get people liked the text, I'm not a teenager and I don't feel the need to make someone not enjoy a thing, but it's always been good to sit with a few things at once, you're growing if it feels a bit uncomfortable at first.
With that in mind if this or the following rears your hackles up it's totally fine to have that feeling, half the reason I'm posting this is to see exactly why people have those feelings along with the last time you read the book, I'm not here to say don't have fun because certain things might not hold up the way you thought.
So then is it supposed to be a hypothetical, why is one of the moons far worse off, it's no longer a fair comparison and your sort of just shorting through noise for the authors thoughts, was it never supposed to be, was that a sacrifice to fit it in the series, or does she just not know how to do this stuff?
Why did she assume anarchists couldn't produce massive projects? We have plenty of ruins from prehistory built by egalitarian societies today we would call anarchist, infact the first cities were egalitarian. On the moon they also have easy space flight and specialists and complex logistics, with a society and police so utterly unbelievably well organized that no one died, even accidentally for the majority of the time that society has existed.
How do the capitalists actually still build anything? Their society is much further along than ours, but they still can make enough missiles to fight a wars, and it doesn't cost a sqaudrillian dollars to make a bridge like it does in the first world today. Marx wrote about financialization, about how one day you would be able to make more money just on the stock market then you could if you actually made a well run business buying, selling and making things with that same amount of money just like right now.
Finally why do the women cover themselves up? In most radical movements people wear far less clothing, not more, and the only time that isn't true is when it's appearance control being done because the society is a cult. to add to that in societies where nudity is common place no part of the body is inherently sexualized, and so it becomes contextual giving people far more control of themselves and how they appear.
With all this stuff in mind and going over it I feel like I could certainly find more if I read it again knowing what I know now, when I look at an art piece I want to be rewarded for thinking about it for days on end, I want to care about all the little things the author cared about too, and this stuff is culturally important, no one can fully separate art from reality, look at all the trans people Psycho killed.
When you write something unlike whatever currently exists it's your job to be good at making assumptions x to y to z, it's about knowing how to let go, when to bite bullets how to change up all the big patterns while keeping most of the little ones intact, her work just sort of seems shoddy. From reading about her she comes across as one of those arts who just likes and feels a bunch of stuff and golomps it together. Maybe I would feel differently now, but I don't really remember the characters or prose and that's not a good sign, I remember Mark Watney and AM and I read the Martian as a little kid. What am I missing here?
David greaber talked about it in either bulshit or the dawn of everything, the ability to imagine your society and imagination it being different, something Learning, I found it once before but I don't remember where
anyway thanks for everyones time
David greaber talked about it in either bulshit or the dawn of everything, the ability to imagine your society and imagination it being different, something Learning, I found it once before but I don't remember where
anyway thanks for everyones time