Me too. Every solo run I play is on B42 and I have to remind myself of all the cool features we’re missing when I hop back into the game with friends

B42 is a beta branch like you say, you have to opt in to play it. The current version does do multiplayer, I’m currently running my own server for my friends on the current version

There are plenty of “private” servers that are technically open to anyone. Just follow the rules and enjoy the game.

You’ll see a lot of “B42” or “build 42” being talked about. This is the most recent major update that is still in beta. It doesn’t have multiplayer but does offer A LOT of new and improved features.

Fantastic game that gets so much deeper with every (infrequent) major update

It’s definitely a contender, I’m not sure it’s “much simpler” though. There is no simple option, it will likely be the most challenging linguistic problem the world has ever faced.

Assuming the periodic table will be the same is a huge leap. @themeatbridge@lemmy.world did a good job of explaining why in another comment. To paraphrase, our periodic table is limited to our perspective of the elements. There could be other even more accurate, and descriptive ways to fully encompass what an element is.

Maths already is a language of sorts, with logic built in. Whereas the periodic table is a technical description of elements.

There are core concepts that are likely to be universally understood.

Maths is probably the best and most common example. If we imagine the symbols have been removed and we work under the assumption that we’re manipulating objects we can show that 1 object + 1 object = 2 objects without any language necessary. From there we (aliens and humans) can work together to build a common foundation of understanding.

Don’t get me wrong, this will not be easy and there will be problems we haven’t thought of but there’s a good chance that a spacefaring civilisation will know enough about mathematics to build a new common language.

I’ve already met you in the middle, I’m not providing any more information until you answer my question because I don’t believe you’re after a nuanced answer and you haven’t even tried to convince me or entertained anything else I said in my previous comments.

Give me a good reason why you’re so interested in Chicago over other, worse cities and I’ll bite

We need to ignore them, they’re obfuscating from the real issue. Payment processors should not have the ability to police content, full stop, end of discussion.

The person who tattled is absolutely irrelevant and a distraction

Yes, you people are asking that to derail from answering the question.

Who people? Do you think I’ve organised a group of friends to all get on your case about this one particular question, or is it more likely that random individuals have the same issues with your question?

It’s not an important piece of information unless you don’t want to admit chicago has a problem with violence.

I think everywhere that has violence has a violence problem. Violence is a problem. Why are you so interested in Chicago’s problem rather than the problem everywhere else?

Are you trying to argue that the crime rates of other cities mean chicago doesn’t have a problem? Just say so if that’s the case.

No, I’ve literally already told you that. I’m simply interested in why you’re interested in the 25th (random number) most violent place instead of the most violent place? What is it about Chicago that has got you so interested?

I’m not sure why you people think that the crime rates of other cities means chicago doesn’t have a problem

That isn’t the point people are making. They are wondering what it is about Chicago that made you focus on it rather than other cities that have a higher crime rate.

It’s an important piece of information you conveniently left out.

If you’re so concerned about skewed results look into per-capita numbers. But it sounds like you already have a reason in mind, you just don’t want to say it

It’s so crazy to talk about “innocent unless presumed guilty” as a policy that exists in western society, when we are drowning in cases to the contrary.

That is patently false. This really makes me think that you have absolutely no concept of what you’re talking about. The “court of public opinion” often assumes guilt based off of an accusation and that is exactly why “believe women” is so dangerous.

What sets rape apart from, say, immigration violations or illegal drug use or terrorism charges or subway fare evasion or CEO murdering isn’t this sacred commitment to “innocent until proven guilty”.

I agree, and this should stay exactly as it is. It’s is one part that is unquestionably beneficial to literally EVERYONE.

Treat allegations of sexual assault with even a fraction of the seriousness put forward to prosecute minor traffic violations. Maybe we can clear that mountainous backlog of uninvestigated rape claims within the victims’ lifetimes.

I absolutely agree. The lack of investigation is the issue, not the fact that women are implicitly believed when they make an accusation. No one should have that privilege.

Because as far as the law is concerned, they ARE NOT a victim until they are proven to be just as the accused IS NOT a perpetrator until they are proven to be. It has absolutely nothing to do with “trustworthyness”, and all to do with due process.

Destroying this legitimately good and absolutely fundamental part of the deeply flawed legal system will not fix this problem. It will only create more. Rage against the machine all you want, I’m absolutely with you. But do so with some critical thought behind it.

Can you tell me how this is relevant to the point I made? How any of that suggests something other than what I said?

If you want to have a conversation, let’s have a conversation but don’t throw data that is irrelevant to the point I made while dodging the point I made.

I think they got the wrong shipment

See, this is the problem. “Believe women” implies that women are telling the truth before an investigation has taken place. If you had read my original comment you’d see that I’m not suggesting women should be treated as they currently are, but that “believe women” specifically is a harmful rhetoric.

If we both want women’s accusations to be taken seriously and investigated as any other potential crime would be, then we’re on the same page and want the same thing. The statement “believe women” does not literally or figuratively mean that though, the problem is the wording. Say what you mean instead of this wishy washy language that is detrimental to the cause.

Do you want a medal for being a champion cat sexer?

I don’t think the current legal systems are perfect, but I do think “believe women” would make them fundamentally worse.

How do you handle the issue of future false accusations? And don’t give me the hand wavy “but there are so few false accusations” because that doesn’t matter to the person being accused.

THE core tenet of most legal systems is effectively “innocent until proven guilty”. “Believe women” utterly breaks that, they cannot exist within the same legal framework.

So, would you rather have the legal system change to better serve women by equally investigating their accusations, or by removing “innocent until proven guilty”?

This is exactly right. The “believe women” stance is so childish and naive. “Take women seriously” would be just as effective, less dangerous and fit into every just legal system on the planet

I’m just waiting for them to say something dumb like “fewer hungry people means less hunger, you’re welcome Gazans”