WatDabney

What "us?"

I'm going to be right there alongside her, on my way to an execution too.

And so are you.

I wonder how she's going to feel about this choice a few years down the line, when President-for-life Trump orders her execution.

Very much so (and there's at least one patient gamers community around, because I've posted to one).

The only advantage I can see to playing a game on release is taking part in that first rush of interest, but I'm antisocial enough that that doesn't appeal to me anyway, so I'm not missing anything there.

Beyond that, I think playing a game at least a year or so after release has all of the advantages. The initial flurry of absolute love vs. absolute hate has died down so it's easier to get a broad view of the quality, the game is more stable, the price is better, dlc and expansions are out and generally packaged with the game, and best of all, in this current era, I can most likely buy it from GOG and actually have the full game, DRM-free, on my system.

And there are a bajillion good games out there, just waiting for me to discover them.

I haven't read those yet, but I intend to. And I expect that, like every one I've read yet, they'll be solid 7 or 8 out of 10 books.

That's the thing that reminded me of Crichton. He has that same ability to start with some fascinating idea and run with it and deliver a solid, well-told and satisfying story, then move on to some completely different fascinating idea and run with it and deliver another solid, well-told and satisfying story. He's not locked into any specific genre or any specific approach to telling a story - just whatever works for that idea, that's what he does, and it just works.

Shards of Earth by Adrian Tchaikovsky

I've been on a bit of a Tchaikovsky binge lately. I read Children of Time years ago and enjoyed it, but for whatever reason, didn't read anything else by him then. I had a copy of Made Things knocking around though, and I finally read it a few weeks ago and was so impressed I started reading him in earnest. This is the... let's see... seventh book of his I've read lately.

He sort of reminds me of Michael Crichton. He's not a particularly notable prose stylist - his writing is entirely competent and sufficient, but not in any way really remarkable. But he tells very imaginative stories very well, so he's a satisfying read.

This one is a sort of political thriller wrapped around a mystery that plays out a bit like a science fiction update of a Lovecraftian eldritch abomination story, leavened a bit with Emily St. John Mandel style misfit spaceship crew slice of life. I'm enjoying it.

Guaranteed they are.

Even if he wasn't a racist fuckwad on his own, he's of a generation of white New Yorkers for whom being racist against Puerto Ricans was sort of a universal minimum.

In a statement to the Miami Herald, a Trump campaign spokesperson said that Hinchcliffe’s joke about Puerto Rico does not “reflect the views of President Trump or the campaign.”

Bullshit.

They didn't book him by accident. They booked him for one and only one reason - so that he'd say things that they expected would appeal to Trump's supporters.

And that's exactly what he did.

Oh come on.

There will be no regional deal because Israel doesn't want a regional deal. Israel wants to conquer the entire territory, from the river to the sea, and kill everybody who might stand in their way. And they're not going to stop.

I'll take that as a yes.

Do Russians (and western Putin supporters for that matter) have an unusually high rate of domestic violence?

It strikes me that this whole spin that Ukraine "provoked" Russia's invasion is basically identical to the stereotypical wife beater's claim that she "provoked" his violence.

And I wouldn't be surprised if people who tend to believe the one tend to believe the other too.

I hadn't put it together before, but Israel is sort of an international case of affluenza - a spoiled, indulged rich kid who ends up a psychopath because daddy's money has always given them whatever they want and shielded them from ever having to face the consequences of whatever they do.

It's long past time to cut off their allowance.

Has anyone else noticed that the NYT's coverage of the election lately has been more generous to Harris and more critical of Trump?

I think a case could be made that that's potentially an even more sure indicator that Harris has the advantage than any poll, since the NYT is so craven and cowardly that the only way they'd shift their coverage like that is if they're reasonably confident that Harris is going to win. If they thought that Trump might win, they'd still be kissing his stinky ass.