keep telling me my lived experience, please. I have no idea how I lived before you told me what happened in my live.
If there was discrimination it was because you didn’t contribute, or you opened the discussion. Doxxing in the 90s wasn't a meaningful risk, and social networks were small and largely isolated.
the condescension here is palpable. as if you know more? thanks for your sacrifice: enlightened one.
Total pish, once you got online you were just a name.
Didn’t like where you were, there was always somewhere else to go and a new name to take.
Getting access to the internet was a major issue for the poor (a situation I have first-hand experience in)- but once you were in, you were part of the club. Unless you behaved poorly- then you had to make a new name for yourself somewhere else.
Writing all those delusions and not connecting the dots is insightful.. You are so pampered in your own little delusion that don't seem to understand the actual concept of real discrimination. And looking at your socials, I understand why, you don't look like someone who has ever experienced real discrimination and just hissy fit about any hurt feelings as "discrimination".
Yeah, congratulation for having a normal life of suffering, you are not the only one. Doesn't answer the question why you are still so ignorant about the suffering of others and live in that a delusion of internet having been some kind of pink pony farm.
Obsidian has the philosophy that the filesystem is the source of all truth, and it's showing directly the filesystem without any obvious layer in-between. The reason is, that you should be able to read your data with any other app and have the same amount of data accessible. So from their POV, there is not really any place to store the information for the sorting. Adding it to the filename, would annoy the people, so It's up to you to choose your own plugin allowing this.
Also, with the new bases-features, you can easily create your own sorting with a table, or whichever view you prefer.
There are usually strict requirements and checks on public services, so you can't just declare everything open source and gain the benefits. Additionally, paying a wage seems to be forbidden, only covering a certain amount of expenses, like travel costs, or I guess server-costs, is allowed. So you would need a very creative company to somehow convince people to work for them with this.
> If a restaurant served food that harmed people we wouldn't say
Is sugar in your country restricted? Or meat? I guess alcohol is, as it's everywhere. But restaurants server many harmful food which is only tolerated because harm comes from time and serving-sizes. But the same can be said for dark patterns in software, they are usually not obvious and in your face, but sneaky enough to fly under the parent's attentions.
Intel was supposed to build something in Germany some years ago, didn't really work out because of reasons which seems to have been outside of Germany's control. So it's not that they are unwilling, but it just didn't succeed yet.
There is also a modern continuation from the original Creator, called "Pioneers of Pagonia"[1]. It's Early Access at the moment, but v1.0 is planned for release in some weeks (11.12.2025). And so far it looks promising, seems to be a pretty good game for Settler-Fans. As I remember, it's a reaction on the catastrophic fail of the latest official Setter-Game, which is not with Ubisoft, so I guess serving the old fans is one of the goal.
It's a shame that Pioneers of Pagonia doesn't stick to the same strict path-network mechanic, that was my favourite part of the earlier Settlers that later went away.
From the recommendation of another commenter, here's a more recent indie game that seems focused exactly on that style of path logistics:
As a Settlers 1/2 fan I spent quite a bit of time in The Colonists - can recommend it if you liked the road building/flag mechanics and the chill gameplay.
Settlers 1/2 are logistics simulators. The core of gameplay is that the map consists of vertexes on which you can place flags, and then connect flags with paths. On each path there will be exactly one porter, who will carry stuff from a flag to another. Arranging your network so that goods get where they are going in a reasonable time is like 90% of the gameplay.
It's been a while since I played these games. With settlers 1 and 2, a major portion of the game was managing the transport of resources. That meant setting up strict pathways and even blocking some resources from going down some paths to setup a "priory" route for shipping important goods.
I believe Settlers.. 3? got rid of that completely. Instead of manually placing paths and controlling the shipping routes the game would just figure it out for you.
It's weird that so many pioneer game developers are publishing new games today independently. By name alone the game is going to get some attention. How are publishers so bad at retaining creators? Why isn't this being published by Ubisoft themselves?
In this specific case, it's because of creative conflicts. Volker Wertich, the creator of Settlers 1&3, was also supposed to be creator for the newest Game, Settler: New Allies (part 8(?) of the mainline). He left after Ubisoft was not convinced from his Vision, considered it too complex, ambiguous. They release the reworked final version some years later, and it flopped hard. He then went on to create Pagonia after it came to light how much the new part sucks.
I don't think we know in detail what his original vision was, we can only assume if Pagonia is aiming to manifest it. And there is the theory that Ubisoft didn't like to have two similar games in their catalogue. They already have the Anno-Franchise, which is very similar to settlers, and had a promising new game released around the time Wertich left Ubisoft.
So the answer is probably a mix between internal politics of big companies, risk-avoidance and creative minds being too creative for the average manager. The more money you push, the more the system strifes to controlled outcomes. And Ubisoft was pushing very big around that time, to the point that they killed themselves, it seems.
Ubisoft strategy with The Settlers IP is very hard to understand.
They bought to the market a game with an akward positioning, which could be enjoyable if you see it primarily as a tablet oriented development, but with very little to do with the original The Settlers. Amusingly, it would probably have been better received with a different name.
Accordingly, I could see how the creator would feel uneasy with what's happening.
But they don't fix multiple problems all at once. Most of the time they don't even fix one at a time. And often, as I think is the case here, they pretend they are fixing a problem when really they are doing something else. In this case its the usual 'save the children' wrapping on more rigid control and surveillance of peoples use of computers and the internet.
> But they don't fix multiple problems all at once.
No, they do, they do it the whole time. Those might not the problems you care about, and not all attempts might be successful, but each new or changed law/regulation is fixing something. And there are many new of them over the year.
Each new law/regulation is indeed intended to fix something, the problem is what? I'd love to have the optimism that its the problems that population are experiencing, but in most cases its the problems that the rich and powerful are experiencing. Like 'the internet is allowing people too much power to communicate with each other without state intervention', so they fix it with laws to remove that power. Or 'I am very extremely wealthy, but I want to be in more wealthy, and other people to be poorer so my great wealth has more relative power', so they pass laws to cut social programs to fund high income tax cuts. And so on,..
You seem to have a concerningly narrow view on society and it's processes, to the point where it might be harmful. Maybe start fixing this first, before you complain about something you might not understand well enough?
I could say this exact comment back to you with implication that your view is naively optimistic, whereas at me its implication is I'm defeatistly pessimistic. Maybe the answer is that society needs both of us playing these parts.
society does not want to tackle any problems - especially when it comes to kids. you need continued social discourse to win elections so no one is actually interested in solving anything
> It's one of many problems which is taking care of
I hear about digital freedoms (for porn restrictions, chat message monitoring, etc) being attacked on a weekly basis, often with "think of the children" as a justification.
I don't hear about the fact that Western economies being property-based Ponzi schemes on their last legs being discussed very often, if at all. Instead everyone is trying to extract even more out of it by screwing over the next generations, the very children they are supposed to be thinking of.
