Tesla is a massive stock pumping Ponzi scheme that just happens to have a poorly ran car company attached to it. People need to realize what the goal of Tesla marketing is really about. It will be remembered as one of the great investment scams of our time.
Open world games need two types of fast travel. The first is your standard type, which is pretty much a teleportation ability. That should be greatly limited. At most, just for cases where you need to travel across the entire map, and should be hidden behind some kind of in-game explanation like “you’re taking a boat/plane/subway” or whatever.
The other one should be some way of moving really fast across the map so previously explored areas aren’t a chore to move across. Literally fast travel, and not teleportation. And no, conventional solutions like horses or cars is still not fast enough. It’s still minutes of mindlessly moving from point A to B in most cases. It needs to be truly fast. Spiderman 2 actually did explore this concept pretty well, with ideas like catapulting yourself or using a wingsuit to glide long distances. Other games need to come up with someway of allow players to cross huge distances in in a few seconds.
I just provided you a source. You’re creating your own alternate reality here.
That’s the OP. You didn’t provide any sources yourself.
The issue of leakage is just a potential risk, as your own link mentions. In practice, it’s a non-issue. We don’t worry about gasoline begin too dangerous or EVs being too quiet. It is just fearmongering. Like I pointed out in my study, they are looking at hydrogen for long term energy storage, because it is good at it. Your claim that we can’t store for long periods is simply wrong.
People have looked at hydrogen for long term storage. There is real science to back this up. Also, you never provided any sources to begin with. So you are demanding a double standard here.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352152X21011580
We can it store it long term. It is one of the major strengths of hydrogen. Your claim is near 180 of reality.
No he didn’t. It’s just a bunch of random talking points and myths. He could’ve copy and pasted that answer from any of thousands of social media posts and it would’ve been nearly identical.
Neither was electricity until after we started to build wind and solar. People accused electrification plans of just enabling more coal. This style of argument is intentionally ignoring current and near-future developments. You’re implying that nothing is changing or can ever change.
Again, you are perfectly recreating the same anti-wind and anti-solar arguments of the past. This is the same story, just with different names and dates. You really are attacking green energy. It’s just via the “both sides are equally bad” style of attack.
Yes, people outright claimed that large scale deployment of wind or solar were impossible forever. There were even books written entirely about explaining how it was impossible forever. Entire energy research groups made annual predictions of imminent collapse of wind and solar power deployments, because it was assumed that it was just impossible forever. It’s pretty obvious you had no memory or are too young to know about all of that.
Again, that is the same thing people said about wind and solar. The naysayers also claimed that they were impossible for similar reasons.
It doesn’t matter that you personally didn’t attack wind and solar. You are attacking green energy now, and doing the same thing as those that did attack wind and solar.
Then you’re missing the point: Wind and solar were heavily dismissed or ridiculed when they were getting started. People mocked them just like what you’re doing now.
Critics of hydrogen are just repeating BS from either the fossil fuel industry or the battery industry. It is just a repeat of anti-wind and anti-solar rhetoric back when they were just getting started.
No. This is just a return to the days of the IE-only web. It will be problematic but it won’t be the end of the web.
This. People are basically in denial over how poorly Mozilla is handling Firefox. They are genuinely going to drive their product to zero marketshare pretty soon.
Without delving into the question over how good the game is, this sounds like a company that simply has the wrong processes in place. A case of “working hard” instead of “working smart.” As a result, they waste a lot of time and resources on things that ultimately don’t matter. I’m sure the person in question worked really really hard on the game, but it’s mostly pointless and ineffectively effort.
Developer feedback is usually about answering questions that the players have, or finding bugs that were missed in QA. What Bethesda is doing is quite a bit more ridiculous.
You basically just reinvented the bus/taxi…
Which is why BEVs aren’t the future.
Given how massive their game is, I’m doubtful. So much of what they did in the first game will have to be rebuilt. Compared to just reusing most of the original assets and code, this sounds like a lot more work.
There’s an old adage in programming that you should almost never rewrite everything: https://www.onstartups.com/tabid/3339/bid/2596/Why-You-Should-Almost-Never-Rewrite-Your-Software.aspx
Going from their existing RED engine to Unreal is basically the same idea. Almost nothing from the original Cyberpunk game is going to be easily translated to the new platform. I think CDPR just set their development timeline back by at least 3 years.
Musk has swatted people he disagreed with. He is the antithesis of a free speech absolutist.