DaSaw

Semantics.

I'm pretty sure my brother reached numbers like this for Ghostbusters (TV edit) when he was a little kid.

Discomfort stimulates growth, but the actual growth happens during periods of recovery. That is true of the body, and I have little doubt it is true of the mind, as well. I'm not saying people should never step out of their comfort zone. But just like we shouldn't be judging people at the gym because, from our perspective, they should be able to do more, we should be extending compassion to those of us who have difficulties in the mind, particularly considering we can only know our own perspective, not theirs. I mean, you wouldn't expect a guy in a wheel chair to be doing leg presses, would you?

I've probably seen it here more than on Reddit, but that's because I spend more time in the general gaming community here, while on Reddit I was in the fan community specifically... particularly teslore, where "Duh, TES lore is stupid and random" doesn't get much traction.

Would you recommend NMS to someone who:

1. Really wants to play Starfield but probably won't have the necessary hardware for at least a year.

2. Is an old Bethsoft fan, having played, and thoroughly enjoyed, every TES game from Daggerfall to Online, excepting only Battlespire and the phone games.

3. Has been jonesing for some space sandbox for probably a decade at least.

Crypt of the Necrodancer: Roguelike to the beat! Dance pad compatible.

I don't know much about specs. I just find it fascinating that people are actually defending Bethesda in this post. Where's the standard anti-Bethesda fandumb pile on?

Mario games are all right, except for all the platform jumping.

You don't need the biggest map ever to make a good game. You do, however, need the biggest map ever to make a good Elder Scrolls game. People referring to BG3 don't really understand the essence of the Elder Scrolls, a vision the series has pursued all the way back to Arena.

No, show her your Bionicle collection.

You don't need to adjust for income. How do you get high value land with a low income? How do you own high value land and not derive an income from it? You're imagining an extreme edge case of some family that's been passing high value land down, generation after generation, without ever leveraging this advantage into financial success.

The more valuable the property, the larger a component of that value that tends to be in the value of the location itself, as opposed to the capital improvements to that location. Low income housing, as cheaply built as it is, is built in an even cheaper location. Conversely, a house but for higher income people is built more expensively, but even greater is the access to good schools, jobs, shopping, low (blue collar) crime rates, and so on that a high value location provides.

And that's just residential real estate, which is almost people even think about. With commercial and industrial sites, location becomes even more important.

People who talk this way don't know what land value is. They imagine there is a relationship to quantity, when location is almost the entire driver. Maybe a thousand square feet of space in upper Manhattan or San Jose or something is comparable to a hundred acres in rural Wyoming, or wherever.

And what about the poor in cities? They already pay a land value tax... to the owners of the land. You will say that if the owners are taxed, they will raise rents... but if they can just raise rents like that, why haven't they already? Normally, a tax can be "passed on" because a tax on a thing affects the supply of that thing: the tax raises costs, which lowers profits, which drives capital out of that industry and into another, which reduces the amount being produced, which allows the higher price.

But land is fixed in supply. If you're imagining a way of increasing or reducing the supply, you're not thinking about land, but capital improvement to it. The supply can be neither increased nor decreased. Its existence is not dependent on any industry or thrift or other service on the part of the landowner and, as such, any income derived simply from owning a location and leasing it out to others is unearned. It's essentially extortion, one person renting to another the "privilege" of existing, and if there are any landowners not collecting the full value that can be collected, it is either because they haven't found the highest price yet, or out of the kindness of their hearts.

The occupant should own the land. Absentee landlordism shouldn't be a thing.