Bay 12 Games Forum

My advice for reaching endgame toys is to just cheat. Cheat engine trivially edits the resource amounts, and you can go wild from there

Alternative is to just make sure you don't have any factions in play with apocalypse mechanics. Pretty sure there's also some mod or another that adds an inactive faction that's really hard to kill, too, so you can keep playing after everything else has died. You got options, heh.

Being bald grants you access to sport a great bear

Sporting with a great bear, huh. I've heard that joke before, "hunter"

That... seems to be a remarkably shit news article, which I guess isn't be surprising. It apparently wasn't so much the "bald" part as "personal physical characteristic attached to insults, on top of other things", which in this particular case was bald, but could have been... whatever. Brown-eyed or somethin' would have probably met the standard there just as well. Bloody clickbait shite

Anyway, it extremely isn't a constitutional protected right -- building ownership in general isn't, as far as I'm aware, as shown by things like eminent domain, or even foreclosures and whatnot, houses not used as explicit collateral ending up being sold to pay off debts, just as a couple non-exhaustive examples. Property ownership at all isn't, really, as demonstrated by shite like civil asset forfeiture.

Occurred to me it's probably worth noting I'm not saying this was necessarily a good thing. Some of the major uses of that mess has been to destroy non-white communities (by building roads straight through them, taking land to further the old genocide efforts against natives, and so on) and immiserate their members, and that continues to this very day. It is very much american and something our constitution has done very, very little to prevent, though

Uh Cash is bad because it can be spend on drugs.  Anything that can be converted to cash can be converted to drugs.  Yes, people (of all social classes) use drugs.

It's been found pretty consistently that the number of folks that pile money into drugs like that is a small enough problem it costs more money to prevent than to ignore, far as I'm aware. It being a major concern is part of the staggering amount of largely invented whole cloth, mostly racist as hell, horseshit surrounding so-called "welfare queens". It's a lie, in other words. A persistent and vile one originating from folks far worse in character than drug abusers.

... the solution to it also isn't to try to punt people to the streets, starve them to death, or leave them without healthcare or even a modicum of dignity (i.e. starve them of resources), it's to get them help with dealing with an addiction.

I'm in favor of home inheritance, because I think its a fundamental US Constitutionally protected right.  Frankly, if you don't believe in home inheritance, you have no place in the United States.  Go take your communist doctrine elsewhere.  And yes, that is communism.  Taking away people's personal property rights is exactly what the Communists do.

Anyway, it extremely isn't a constitutional protected right -- building ownership in general isn't, as far as I'm aware, as shown by things like eminent domain, or even foreclosures and whatnot, houses not used as explicit collateral ending up being sold to pay off debts, just as a couple non-exhaustive examples. Property ownership at all isn't, really, as demonstrated by shite like civil asset forfeiture.

I don't think there's been a period in US history where gov't or private entities haven't been willing and legally able to take homes or stuff from folks under certain conditions, so if it's unamerican communist doctrine, it both pre-dates communism as a doctrine and has been a consistent part of the american legal framework for at least as long as the country has existed (and if that's not enough to make something american, I'm not sure what would be, ahaha).

Home inheritance is the best way for the Middle Class to remain Middle Class between generations, or for the Poor to become Middle Class (if you believe there are only three classes, which I think is flawed¹).

It is the rich that would benefit from the removal of home inheritance, since they're the only ones for whom the Home is NOT the greatest asset the dead person leaves behind.

Eh... it used to be a way to reach or maintain a middle class level of wealth and whatnot. Nowadays it's increasingly not either of those, due to the difficulty everyone except the rich are having getting and staying in the home ownership game. Having a persistent place to rest your head absolutely is one the biggest advantages someone can have for breaking out of poverty, though.

The rich still have absolutely huge amounts of money sunk into property that gets inherited. It's true preventing that would probably have the least effect on wealth transfer for them, but the other effects might be worth it.

Generally agree, except the idea of giving people property.  Giving people property doesn't eliminate landlords, it creates them.

The trick'd be just give it to everyone, maybe put some restriction (temporary, probably) on how the building can be sold or rented. It'd be a whatever thing if it was ensuring housing for the population, anyway. I may be pretty iffy on landlords being a thing that should be allowed to exist (mostly because they're pointedly not enabling the following), but if having some around let everyone have a place to stay it'd be an acceptable trade.

I mean... it didn't sound like that? I've heard "other serious side effects may occur" before, which would be reasonable phrasing for a CYA for unknown effects. This wasn't like that.

It was more cutting out (possibly quite a lot of) that line of common major ones that most of those cursed ads have, which would be a pretty substantial (and fairly serious) change in how they've worked for a while now.

As for welfare - I don't think I'm for just giving people food and housing. I want the government to set up programs so the welfare people can produce their own food and housing - that is, how do we move them from being renters to being owners?  This doesn't mean to not give them what they need now, but don't stop there!

The thing is that 110% two of the most effective immediate steps you can take to support someone moving towards that is... make sure they have a roof over their head and aren't food insecure. It's one of the reasons I'm entirely in favor of just giving people food and shelter (and healthcare, education, basic infrastructure access, etc.), because it's shit that works and works better than just about bloody anything to permanently pull folks out of poverty, and in the interim massively reduces human suffering. Good stuff, y'know?

Plus one way to sidestep the renter thing is to just, y'know. Provide housing. Outright and owned. Fuck the landlords, cut out the middleman, just give folks a home with a guarantee nothing short of it burning down is going to take it from them, and rebuild the damn thing if it does. It's remarkably effective shit, as demonstrated by all the folks that inherit housing free from family instead of society in general

That... seems to be sidestepping the question, there. It's possible (though largely worse for the first and there's other problems involved with the second) to cover all of that by just giving folks money. Iirc it even tends to cost less, as alternatives involve extra infrastructure and administration, generally for little direct benefit (and pretty common indirect downsides, as forcing time sinks and misery/confusion on folks having trouble generally doesn't exactly help them get out of it).