That’s exciting - I’ll be keeping a close eye on this as it’s likely what will make me switch to Linux for gaming in the near future.

True, but Göteborg has its own areas to avoid. Hjällbo comes to mind…

Thanks! Sounds like decent progress hady been made in this area already. I’ll keep an eye on this project so that when 24H2 drops I’ve got a way to avoid turning my headset into e-waste.

That sounds pretty promising. I know the headset camera-based controller tracking will be a pain to implement, but at least there’s some hope for people that plonked down 600+ bucks for these devices. Some, like me, just a month ahead of the eol announcement…

“Fighting solves everything” - These guys are really out there thinking they can punch the genie of social progress back into the bottle. If this were a parody people would say it’s too ridiculous to be true.

As someone familiar with Microsoft’s meeting culture, this is pretty accurate. If you want to attend every meeting in the day, you will be in three meetings at once. At a minimum.

Talk about a terrible way to go. For everyone involved. That’s a lot of people that’ll need trauma counseling for sure.

Overall I think one could argue that by the time of the events of TES 3 nothing the Tribunal was doing was particularly good looking.

If it wasn’t for the Nerevarine Dagoth Ur would’ve eventually converted all the inhabitants to zombies, with the Tribunal being mostly powerless to stop him.

Love seeing Morrowind references in the wild.

By the way, it’s strongly implied in the game that holding those meteorites suspended above the city is a bargaining chip by Vivec to scare people into continued worship of him to offset the fading power of the heart of Lorkhan (which they used to become the tribunal of gods in the first place).

This is also why, in the expansion (after the Nerevarine destroys the heart) we see the meteorites falling to the earth after Vivec disappears. This eventually triggers the apocalyptic red year, which leaves large parts of Morrowind destroyed and explains the dark elf refugees in TES V (plus the expansion where you can see the mainland of Morrowind as a smouldering ruin from the shore of Solstheim).

You’re looking for a reason but refuse to accept one when provided. The reason assistance in dying is not suicide is blatantly obvious; the definition of suicide is an act in which one person takes their own life. End of sentence. Adding another person makes it a different act, and whether you like it or not, at least the legal system agrees on this.

I’m done debating this. Have a good day.

No, it’s common parlance that attempts to avoid previous words associated with stigma.

That’s not entirely honest - you’re also trying to argue that having this option is not a good or valid option (you called “debatable”) and are trying to steer the conversation by creating a false equivalency between assistance in dying and suicide, which are not the same thing.

I fully agree with your example - someone unaliving themselves on a deserted island committed suicide. Never said they didn’t.

What I said, and what you’re conveniently omitting, is that suicide is an act by an individual, there is no other party to the unaliving. This is not the case in assistance in dying, and there’s very good legal reason why we consider these distinct from eachother, and from murder (to your earlier point).

Even if we forget the traumatic angle I brought up earlier, surely you must see the difference between an act that involves one party and an act that involves two parties with express intent and consent.

What you’re trying to do is the same as arguing masturbation and sex are the same thing because they end with the same result (orgasm).

I’m absolutely worried this will get taken advantage of in the US’ hellscape that is their healthcare system, but that doesn’t mean the concept is without merit.

It’s like arguing that cars should not be available for purchase because someone might use one irresponsibly, while forgetting their utility outside of abuse.

In a healthcare system that optimizes outcome instead of profit, having the option to allow someone to choose to end their suffering should not be considered a bad thing.

We have a great term for the realm between murder and suicide - assistance in dying.

It bridges the gap between the definition of murder (where one party unalives the other party against their consent) and suicide (where one party unalives themselves with intent) by having the person looking to be unalived explicitly expires their intent and consent for the other party to assist them.

I feel as if you’re trying to create a false equivalency to undermine the validity of this option.

And as to whether this is less traumatic than suicide - you have got to be kidding or you’ve never had to deal with the reality of someone committing suicide versus someone choosing assistance in dying.

One generally involves a lot of shock and someone finding a dead body in some state, the other is generally a peaceful affair where loved ones say their goodbyes before the person peacefully falls asleep for the last time.

They are nowhere near the same thing for the survivors and you claiming otherwise is an insult to both. And if you can’t see the difference between these two options I’m frankly done debating this with you.

That’s both debatable on a semantic level (is it really suicide if it’s assisted?) and not how I intended the use of the term.

What I tried to say is that this option is less traumatic than non-assisted options for ending your existence and comes with less risk of injury to bystanders to boot.

I can’t understand why so many people are against someone dying with dignity. This is a form of harm reduction for not just the patient, but also their loved ones, and society in general.

Nobody wants to see their loved ones suffer endlessly or needlessly, and this is also a whole lot less traumatic than people committing suicide. Nobody wants the last memory of their loved ones to be the scene of their (potentially messy) suicide.

And that’s not to mention the trauma inflicted on bystanders for some of the more public suicide methods (not to mention that jumping to your death or intentionally walking into/driving into traffic has a decent chance of physically injuring or killing said bystanders).

If this process is undertaken with care and compassion, it’s far less likely to be traumatizing to all involved. And it prevents “spur of the moment” decisions, like many successful suicides are.

Man, this screams “racial profiling” and “unjustified use of force” and they still want to claim there’s no wrongdoing. Seriously, what needs to happen before a police organization goes “Yes, this was excessive and unjustified and we have disciplined the responsible officers” instead of first trying to gaslight the public?

The official count released recently by the Ukrainian government was 31k, vs Russia’s totally believable 6k dead on their own side.

I will happily concede both have incentives to misrepresent their casualty numbers but the difference between Ukraine’s official death toll and the estimates you see from military analysts have a much smaller discrepancy than the official reported losses and independent analysis on the Russian side.

But hey, you believe what you want to believe. We’re all still free to disagree.

All Infantry is cannon fodder to some extent, but so far Ukraine’s casualty numbers for their deployed personnel have been a lot better than Russia’s.

I hope they can maintain that track record.

Yeah, that’s about right. Even so, I’d wager the majority of people owning a cottage or boat are older than the millennial generation.