Correct. Much smaller country with a much more limited employee pool, means the companies will have to show a bit of respect to the job seekers. Don’t wanna piss someone off they may need later, or worse, piss someone off who tells everyone the company is shit and to be avoided. It does depend a lot on the field and region though.

Job hunting is a lot different in my country and field. I usually get a personal email from either the department lead or the CEO no matter the result from the application. It does depend a bit on the company though. The big multinational companies are a lot colder.

Not quite sure what it is, but I’m sensing a bit of tension here OP, how’s the job hunt?

Except the players with the biggest headstart get to make up the rules of the game.

My biggest issue with survival games is usually the lack of a goal. If Jagex treats this game the same way as OSRS or RS3 concerning quests, this could very well be a really nice experience. It could also very well be a very generic survival clone that adds absolutely nothing new to the genre.

It’s also not the first time Jagex has fucked up games. It often seems like they have absolutely no idea what makes OSRS and RS3 as good as they are, and at least for OSRS, the dedication of the mods seem to be the only reason the game isn’t dead.

I suppose we’ll have to wait and see which direction they take it. I hope it’ll be good, but I absolutely expect them to shit the bed on this.

I mean, I hope I’m wrong, but my point is that without more information, I would have to see some actual data to compare this stuff. I am however aware that we won’t get reliable data until large-scale production is both possible, and profitable.

It’s the same scepticism I have when a new building material says it’s much better for the environment, but then it turns out it’s either not possible to upscale to the point that it’s actually environmentally friendly, because it uses a very limited by-product from a different production. Or it turns out they don’t count the materials needed for the underlying construction to make it possible to use, because it’s not directly part of the material.

I just want some proper articles about this stuff, with actual numbers and calculations made public, instead of a picture shared on some social media.

My thought process is that if you have to mimic a living environment, you still need to include most of what the natural environment needs. The one artificial meat I’ve read about had the meat growing in vats of some “solution” that mimics the natural environment of the meat (so like a body). Granted, the process in the post may not function like this, but if it does, that process would include:

• Heating, because the meat is actually meat, and the cells require heat to function, which still isn’t all that efficient.
• Getting rid of the artificial meat’s dead cells and natural waste.
• The “solution” itself I imagine is a funny chemical mix of some sort. So getting those chemicals extracted from their sources. (This one is a bit more iffy, I have no idea what the “solution” is, could be demineralised water with beef stock mixed in for all I know).
• I can’t imagine keeping the “solution” as clean as needed for food safety laws around the world is an easy feat coupled with the other points I’ve listed.

These are all just speculations, please feel free to prove me wrong on any of them, and be sceptical of my list. But this is what I’m sceptical about with the very lacking information in the post.

I didn’t find an answer in my very limited search for what is actually used to grow the meat, so depending on what makes up the “stuff” that brings nutrients into the growing part, we may still need a lot of farmers for something like this. There’s also no way the growing environment, which seeks to create an artificial “animal”, is energyefficient.

I’ll celebrate the day we don’t need farmers, and I’ll celebrate the day it’ll be at least environmentally equivolent, but until I see evidence of those things, I’ll be very sceptical of this stuff.