• 1 Post
  • 124 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 12th, 2023

help-circle
  • To be honest, I think your position is short-sighted, naïve and lacking in pragmatism.

    Right now, in most constituencies, your choice is between Labour/Lib Dem and Tory/Reform. And anyone who thinks Labour getting into government wouldn’t be an improvement over the Tories hasn’t been paying attention for the last decade. Even if Labour had the exact same political stance as the Tories - which they don’t - the fact that they’re not nearly as likely to be corrupt, self-serving slime balls makes them an improvement by itself.

    Labour needs to appeal to moderate, swing voters. There’s no steadfast left-wing voter base in the UK; if Labour can’t win over the swing voters they won’t get elected - it’s that simple. That doesn’t mean they’re sat there asking themselves how they can be more like the Tories, it just means they need to take positions that have broad appeal and don’t just go full-socialism. As much as socialism appeals to me, I’d rather see Labour actually get elected. There’s zero chance we go from our current government to a socialist government overnight.

    And if I think about where I’d like to see our country in ten or fifteen years, Labour winning this election is the most realistic way for us to get there. Spoiling your ballot, not voting at all, or voting for some candidate who’s going to get <3% of the vote isn’t going to achieve anything other than a short-lived sense of self-satisfaction. The best thing any of us can do is to pick the least bad of the realistic options. I don’t like that that’s the system, but it’s the system we’ve got and we either have to work within it or have it imposed on us anyway.

    I don’t think the Labour Party is perfect by any means. They have some ideas I like, and I’m hopeful they’ll unveil more policies I like in the next few weeks. And, of course, there are things I dislike about them. They’re certainly not my dream party. But I also think it’s important not to let perfect be the enemy of good. We have a chance to improve things, and squandering that chance just because things aren’t going to be perfect is fucking stupid.




  • It certainly is a lot, although it’s the sort of thing where, when you really think about it, you’d kinda hope it’s something the government is willing to spend money on. You don’t want all the best and brightest just going to private companies because they can earn 3x as much as the government is willing to pay. (Whether the current SPADs are the best and brightest, I don’t know… If they are, it’s certainly not reflected in the government’s decision-making! But I think the point still stands that there needs to be a financial motivation for talented people to work in government rather than private businesses.)

    Yeah, the diversity looks pretty bad…




  • This one feels a little different. He stated previously that he was going to stand down at the next election, which is reiterated in the article:

    He said he would not seek re-election to the House of Commons at the next general election. But, writing in the Observer, he says he envisages a role advising the Labour party on its policies on mental health while focusing more on his NHS work.

    Defecting - and especially co-ordinating with Labour for months to time his defection and pre-arrange him joining Labour - isn’t just fleeing the sinking ship so much as hanging around a little longer and deliberately trying to make it sink faster. It represents something rather than just being about saving his own skin.


  • I don’t think it’s that, considering he’s standing down at the next election anyway:

    He said he would not seek re-election to the House of Commons at the next general election. But, writing in the Observer, he says he envisages a role advising the Labour party on its policies on mental health while focusing more on his NHS work.

    Whether that advisory role would be paid or not, I don’t know, but it certainly wouldn’t be to the tune of £90K!


  • As much as I disliked Cameron’s government at the time, I don’t think it was close to the levels of nationalism and right-wing ideals we see from today’s Conservative party. I rarely agreed with their approach, but I could at least understand that there were genuinely good-faith Tory MPs back then who simply had a different approach to things than what I would have wanted to see. Maybe they were just better at hiding it, but they did feel less sleazy and corrupt, and more like they actually wanted to work towards changing things for the better rather than just tearing everything down and lining their own pockets.





  • I wouldn’t spoil my ballot personally unless I felt every party right now was actively bad. I think there are a few things you should consider:

    Some of the parties aren’t necessarily the same, policy-wise or values-wise, as they were in the past. They might have the same name as they did ten years ago, but that doesn’t mean everything else about them is frozen in time. Parties evolve, and you should judge them as they are now and the direction they’re heading in rather than holding vendettas against them for things that aren’t representative of how they are now. This is particularly important when parties have new leadership and direction - Labour, in particular, feels like quite a different party to how it was in 2019. Is it better? In some ways yes, in other ways no, I think. But whether you think it’s better or not, I think it’s distinct enough, and tried to distance itself enough from what it perceived as issues it had in 2019, that holding it accountable still doesn’t achieve much. I don’t think it’s fair to blame Ed Davey’s Lib Dems for Nick Clegg’s coalition either (although I do think Clegg did a reasonable job of moderating the Tories during that time - things got so much worse once the Tories got full power).

    I also think it’s important to think of every election as a stepping stone to the future, rather than hoping for perfection to happen overnight. Taking the Labour party as an example, because they’re the biggest rivals to the Tories on a national level: do I think things will be perfect if Labour get power? No. They don’t necessarily represent my views on some issues, and I actively disagree with them on others. In another voting system, they probably wouldn’t be my first choice. But I also think that if Labour gets in, things will move in a better direction. If I think about where I’d like things to be in ten or twenty years, Labour winning this election is probably what ensures the best (or at least most realistic) chance of getting there.

    Don’t let “perfect” be the enemy of “good”. None of the options are perfect as far as I’m concerned. But Labour, Lib Dems, Greens and SNP are all good compared to the Tories, and doing what you can to help the one that gives the best chance of keeping the Tories out in your constituency is going to move things in a good direction. I think that having the chance to actually get rid of the Tories is not the time for apathy, also. I’d hate to see the Tories win again because the left gets complacent or apathetic, or starts splitting the vote because Starmer’s Labour isn’t perfect. Because do you know what else isn’t perfect? Another five fucking years of Tory government. It looks like they’re on their way out, but let’s not fumble it at the finish line.

    Get these right-wing ghouls out of power, and then write to your MP telling them how you’d like to see things change. Because chances are it’ll achieve more than spoiling your ballot. Spoiling your ballot expresses that you’re angry but it doesn’t tell anyone why and it doesn’t do anything to bring about change.





  • You can’t expect 30p Lee to stay with a party for a full government term, surely?

    On the one hand, I do actually like that he puts personal values and policies over party loyalty; I wish we would see more politicians be willing to cross the aisle if their party shifts away from their own values. I’m not a fan of the party system in general. On the other hand, I despise his values and policies - and those of the Tory and Reform parties - and I hope he fades into irrelevance.

    This is definitely a blow to Rishi Sunak. A little over a year ago he personally selected 30p Lee as vice-chairman of the Tory party and now he’s defected. That’s a huge political embarrassment - and Rishi was already looking weak.



  • There are definitely technical reasons why saving mid-run is a lot more complicated. With Pacific Drive, right now when you save, it’ll save:

    • the state of your car - this will likely be done by looking each individual “equipment slot” the car has, assigning them a number, assigning each possible upgrade for that “slot” a number/letter, and storing its damage state (which is probably just a scale of 1-5 or whatever). So the game will store everything about your car in the format off “slot x, upgrade type y, damage z”, which can just be three values.
    • your quest state. The game won’t remember what quests you’ve done or how you’ve done them in the way that you remember it - it’ll just store that you’ve completed quest step 14a and that 14b is your active objective.

    It makes for a fairly simple, small save file. Being able to save mid-run would add a lot of complexity because it’d need to save a complete map state, including:

    • the map layout
    • your position in the map
    • the enemies and hazards in the map - their positions, states, etc.
    • what’s happened already in the map
    • the loot in the map, and whether you’ve collected it or not

    And so on. Not only does it massively increase the complexity, it would also increase the size of save files a lot and make saving and loading a lot more cumbersome. And that’s just a simplified breakdown; there are definitely other factors that can make it much, much more complicated.


    There are definitely some games where “easy mode” save systems could be implemented without much changing on a technical level, but I don’t think Pacific Drive is one of them.


  • I’m not sure I see how they’re comparable. Progressivism requires the ability to progress; if we somehow create a completely perfect utopia then there will be no room for progressivism, but otherwise there will always be some way to improve things and progress. In practice, there will always be some way to improve society which means infinite progressivism surely isn’t unreasonable?

    Infinite growth isn’t possible because infinite money doesn’t exist, it’s as simple as that. And if infinite money did exist, infinite growth wouldn’t be possible because everything would already be infinitely large and therefore unable to grow any further…

    … but beyond that, it also requires more and more people who can afford whatever the product/service in question is. Which requires either infinite people, infinite money or both. And as the product/service grows and prices likely increase, people will priced out of the market which is the opposite of infinite growth.

    It’s also worth considering that progressivism is a mindset that is aiming for zero - zero problems, zero inequality, zero bigotry, etc. It’s not about pushing for infinite anything, it’s about trying to reduce existing issues. And while it’ll likely never reach its goal, it’s not theoretically or mathematically unreachable. It’s much more realistic to attempt to reduce something to zero than it is to increase it to infinity.