Some quick napkin math tells me a Boeing 767 gets about 7.8 miles per gallon. This is for longer flights thay can spend more time at cruising speed and altitude, short flights are way worse. Travel over 1500 miles (2500km) is a big efficiency jump. Compares favorably to a cross-country road trip.

It’s still far worse than ground-based mass transit but the time factor is hard to ignore. The world needs more high-speed rail.

Wasting ammo on random sections of wall, or vents, or shipping crates…

New Vegas shining brightly in the distance…

Oh this one’s not me. For the first hour maybe but I get really picky really fast because it’s more efficient to just find a new place to take the best loot from. Especially in something like Skyrim where the goons just respawn forever.

I was a frequent flyer in mod chat because I got stuck out of bounds a lot back in the day.

“I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away, but with blood. I had, as I now think, vainly flattered myself that without very much bloodshed, it might be done.”

It’s not bad faith I’m just not taking you very seriously because you aren’t saying anything. “I’ll take ruined fun over ruined lives” is a noncommittal platitude that avoids having an actual stance or argument, it’s vague enough to let you fill in post-facto whatever context helps you while being morally untouchable because obviously nobody is on the side of ruined lives. It’s intellectually lazy at best.

So I pushed, and you stayed noncommittal and only addressed the first part of my response instead of the part about the role of government in this thread about the role of government in regulation.

So I pushed again, and instead of having a thought when pushed you went right into accusing me of engaging in bad-faith. I am reading the text and there’s nothing there so I’m trying to provide you with anything to grab onto. “How much of that danger should be blocked by the state and how much left to the individual to manage?” was not a rhetorical question, it was a natural continuation of the dialogue within context.

It’s not even about monetary efficiency. Ruined fun/ruined life. You said you were on the side of “ruined fun” but how much fun are we talking about? I assume you have some kind of stance because you joined the conversation.

How can rules be enforced without a heirarchy of privilege? What stops someone from saying “I don’t consent to being told what to do”?

Why limit it to direct harm? There’s tons of easily avoidable ways to indirectly cause harm. The most obvious to me are about our natural world: taking anything in an unsustainable way deprives others of opportunity, up to and including their ability to feed themself. Reckless hunting or fishing, poisoning water with agriculture runoff, introducing invasive species for personal gain or through negligence, even just cutting down all the trees around you can have loads of consequences with the impact to animal habitat and increased soil erosion.

The extreme forms of Libertarianism or Anarchy are only possible if everyone engages in good faith. They have no built-in protections against bad actors. Someone wants to divert a river for any reason? Sucks to be downstream.

Where do you draw the line? Because that’s what it’s about: how much risk is acceptable for efficiency, personal freedom, etc. The answer is obviously not “zero” or else we wouldn’t have room for cars, construction, stairs, public beaches, the list goes on. Most of life is inherently or potentially dangerous, how much of that danger should be blocked by the state and how much left to the individual to manage?

“My position is so tenuous yet so important to my identity that I will not tolerate the slightest challenge.”

Alternatively, “That’s why my favorite book is Moby Dick, no frou-frou symbolism. Just a good simple tale about a man who hates an animal.”

Psychonauts is about trauma. Fallout is anti-war. FFVII is environmentalist. Samus as a woman was an intentionally subversive choice. Video games have had socual commentary for as long as it’s been able to be expressed.