GoodEye8

There is no mechanism to kick members from the EU. There's article 7 which pretty much starts with first giving a warning and then everyone (except Hungary) unanimously has to agree to revoke the rights of Hungary. I'm of course simplifying the process because it doesn't matter as the EU is so toothless that they haven't even been able to give Hungary a warning.

Hungary should've gotten a warning the moment they were established as "Partly free democracy".

You wrote you're supporting of the kind of socialism a lot of socialists would consider capitalism, because it doesn't try to achieve socialism, it just tries to keep people happy by having strong social programs. And it's odd of you to talk about game theory when according to game theory capitalism gets more effective when those same social programs get cut and that money is used for capitalistic purposes. Capitalism is also the reason why we still have 40 hour work weeks, because any increase in individual productivity is not used to reduce working hours but used to reduce the number of workers. Why? Because the goal is profits and if you can do the same amount of work with less people your profits increase. Keeping the same amount of workers but reducing working hours doesn't increase profits so that's not a desirable outcome.

f you analyse the common forms of socialism using those, it is obvious it will always devolve into authoritarianism.

No offense, but I seriously doubt you've done any of such analysis.

The incentives between leaders and the population are too misaligned and the power is too concentrated.

So instead we should support a system where political motives are commodified and corporations sell the power to influence the political landscape (see Cambridge analytica) and corporations have such power entire nations struggle to keep them in check (see Facebook fighting with EU over targeted ads) and then there's whatever shady shit Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Boeing are doing. The USSR had a corrupt power structure in place but they still had to play the charade of appealing to the people. Part of the reason you know USSR sucked is because they had to do it publicly. Corporations have unchecked concentration of power, they can (and they do) keep their shit secret and when there are whistleblowers (like in case with Boeing) they just kill them and nobody will do anything about it because corporations can have so much power nobody can keep them accountable.

There is beef between Max and George, but it's probably not going to play a role in the championship.

Rise isn't a good for comparison because Rise was designed for the switch. Or course it's going to run exceptionally well on the Deck. It probably runs better than World, because World was designed for X1/PS4.

Edit: just to clarify I'm not defending the poor performance of Wilds, they did the exact same shit with World. I'm just clarifying that Rise performance was probably never going to happen.

As someone also from a post soviet country, don't make the mistake of thinking all socialism is the same as Leninism.

Once you come up with an economic model that both works economically and does not hand power to elected officials or some other such group,

So you'd rather support a system where the power is handed to the unelected "officials"? You can see that happening in real time with Musk effectively leading the US. Not to mention almost all forms of democracy have people handing the power to the elected government, so I really don't know what you're opposing here.

As the other commenter put it, it depends on how it's structured. There are so many ways to set up a coop I won't get into how shares affect dividends. Instead I'll use your example to show why your voting right is worth more than how the profits gets distributed.

If you're making ten bucks from your share and the founder is making a million, then the cooperative has to be okay with that arrangement. If you're collectively not okay with it then you have the power to change that. The founder can have all the shares in the world, they still have one vote. Since you collectively have the majority of votes you can simply vote to change how profits get distributed and the founder has to accept it because they don't own the cooperative, you all do.

Maybe this blog post is of use. Good Alt Text, Bad Alt Text — Making Your Content Perceivable.

If you don't feel like reading the entire post you can skip to "Writing good alt text — Context is key".

Well yeah, but cooperatives generally avoid the possibility of buying voting power because that kinda contradicts the purpose of a coop.

Except shares don't represent the amount of ownership of a company. Everyone gets one vote regardless of how many shares they have, thus equal ownership.

It takes time to alter the course of the market. Intel has been shitting the bed with their CPU-s for over a decade and in that time frame the market has gone from something like 95% Intel, 5% AMD to ~60% Intel, 40% AMD. The average consumer doesn't really care about Intel vs AMD either, but somehow the market has shifted. We just have to hope Nvidia shits the bed for the next decade.

This is why my online gaming has kinda died off. I don't really mind matchmaking and I think skill-based matchmaking definitely has a place in actually competitive games, but I miss the communities that get built up around a dedicated server. My fondest memories of multiplayer games come from community servers, because eventually you just know who you're playing with and it becomes a place to hang out.

But the story beat is static, it always gives you the same enemy in the same situation. The nemesis system turns that story beat dynamic. Every time you hit that story beat you get a different enemy in a different situation. It doesn't give everyone the same story, it gives everyone their story. It's innovation is how the system sets up stories and ties them into the gameplay. The system is designed to draw you into an encounter with a nemesis, there are multiple outcomes to that encounter. Those encounters become callbacks in the next encounter and so on and on until you've create a storyarc against that enemy.

For example I remember having a nemesis I couldn't kill with a sneak attack (which was very much my preferred way of getting rid of nemesis I wanted to get rid of). So I had to fight him head on and I set him on fire. He managed to escape while I was being overrun by grunts. One of the grunts slayed me and became a new nemesis. Meanwhile the one that got away gained a new weaknesses to fire. One storyline branched into two storylines. Not only did my individual story born from the nemesis system branch out, the gameplay encounters with those nemesis also changed from the previous encounter. The next time I fought my old nemesis I had a new trick up my sleeve, I could use fire against them. As for the new nemesis, well get to him.

That's the innovation of the nemesis system. It's a story generator that gives you your story and each encounter alters the gameplay for the next encounter. But that's only the foundation of the nemesis system. The Nemesis hierarchy and relations between them is an extra layer of storytelling. For example that grunt who killed me turned out to become a really annoying nemesis, I really struggled killing him and every encounter only made him stronger. So I devised a different strategy. I ended up turning other orks that surrounded him in the hierarchy and started using them to do my dirty work. In the end I wasn't the one to slay my new nemesis, it was a different ork (under my control) who challenged him and killed him.

And final note on what really makes all of it work is the presentation. The orks aren't just a randomized collection of traits, they're voiced and somewhat visually unique and whatever randomized outcome they get to at the end of the encounter gets properly presented in the next encounter. The presentation is the glue that ties all those encounters together into one story. You're presented with an actual nemesis and not just some generic mute and they "remember" the things you did to them before. They feel like a nemesis and not just some randomly generated grunt.

If you tried it and didn't see the appeal I'm guessing the game was too easy. I wasn't impressed by the nemesis system until the orks had a chance to escape or I was forced to retreat or I got killed. The system really opens up and gets interesting when the game gets so challenging that you're no longer certain what will happen in any encounter.