And so they vote republican?

Either way, not much else is gonna matter when the planet is too hot to live on, and entire Islands full of people go underwater, and no other country is willing to take in the refugees.

Sorry if I sound so evangelical about this shit, but that's because I'm fucking surrounded by these "80% who total care" people, and I see how they live their lives and the decisions they make. It's fucking lip service and pushing of the responsibly on to other people while hoping you don't have to make any changes in your life. Or, at best, it's complete fucking ignorance.

So 80% want stronger climate action? But not enough to vote for green parties, and even not enough to not vote for anti-climate action parties?

Using the US as example and assuming the Dem/Rep split is about 50/50: if all Dem voters want "stronger climate action", then that means 30% of Rep voters are voting for anti-climate policy while claiming to want stronger climate action.

Sounds to me like those 80% don't really know how bad the issue is or how much needs to be done. Which means they are lying to themselves or to others, and this number is actually meaningless. That's the point the user above you is making, and it seems you agree.

Yes.

Do Democrats all agree 100% with each other? Do Republicans? They still manage to get together to vote for those parties. How many single issue voters are out there?

But I'm expected to believe 80% want significant climate action or have any clue what that would really entail, but can't get together and vote for a green party? Perhaps if by "stronger climate action" they mean more electrical cars and recycling bins, or maybe these 80% even include people who want more green coal, but I'm sure we both know that doesn't mean really mean anything.

You can’t assume from people voting for one of the only two parties that can win an election

The survey says 80%... that is enough to get any party to win. Hell, if you dare to dream high enough, that number is high enough to completely set the current government to the side, deny their legitimacy, and make a new governmental system - like one which is not a "first-past-the-post system".

The argument of "only two parties that can win" is nonsensical in this context, no offense.

Either way, the US is not the only country in the world, and it's not the only example the other user gave. Even if we ignore the US, how do you justify this in other countries that don't have a first-past-the-post system? Like I said in another comment:

Survey’s also show that most people want carbon taxes, but look what happens when the price of gas goes up.

People don't like that, and it affects how they vote.

For example if we do something relatively small like ending beef subsidies here in the US, then ground beef will double or triple in price, and people will naturally consume much less.

And you think people will be okay with that and just let it happen? A politician does that and not only are they not elected again, they might have protests and even riots on their hands. You can't post c/vegan without non vegans showing up and being disruptive. Which begs the question: why would politicians ever do it when they know this?

You can't have systemic change if people aren't willing to change their lives in the first place. People often say they want this or that, but don't actually stop to think what that requires. Survey's also show that most people want carbon taxes, but look what happens when the price of gas goes up. What do people think carbon taxes will do? Well, the answer is they don't really think about it; they just think "tax for company to help climate", and that's where it stops.

If you want systemic change, then you also need to acknowledge and raise awareness to the need to take accountability and change our own lifestyles, otherwise that systemic change will never work. Going around saying we could all "change our lifestyles and it wouldn't matter" and that "what we need is systemic change" in response to people talking about taking personal accountability, does, ironically, very little to bring about that needed systemic change; or at least that's my perspective.

Linux and Android handles .webp just fine tho

I can't speak for all distros and DEs, and I also don't do many image related things, but I'm using Linux Mint Cinnamon and the default desktop background manager doesn't support .webp. Sometimes I see a cool image that I want to use and I have to convert it; other times, when I notice it's .webp, I just give up on that image.

Mint's default wallpaper manager doesn't, and Discord doesn't let me pick a .webp as an avatar. Those seem like 2 pretty big ones that don't work.

I've also run into other less common examples over time, but those are more random spread out things and I don't remember what they are.

The fact that most comments here seem to be talking about stone henge says otherwise. If not for what happened to stone henge recently, people might not have paid this much attention to this.

It's an older game, but I would say Dragon Age: Origins (the DLCs/complete edition make it even better).

There are fewer companions and most of them are human IIRC, but overall I think they are better fleshed out and more interesting. I liked them all more than most BG3 companions, perhaps in part because they aren't all nymphomaniac bisexuals who try to jump in your pants as soon as you look them in the eye and say "hello".

The story is perhaps a bit more grounded than in BG3, but I overall liked it more and though the overall world and cast of characters were more interesting. You even get a unique starting area depending on your race/class! And even though BG3 is perhaps larger in terms of actual map area, but in DA:O you explore so much more of the world and go through so many different areas with different societies/kingdoms that it ends up feeling bigger and richer in lore, IMO.

Other than that, I would maybe also add Planescape: Torment(*), Fallout: New Vegas, Disco Elysium.

^Yes,^ ^I^ ^am^ ^aware^ ^I^ ^am^ ^a^ ^basic^ ^bitch.^

(*) Disclaimer for Planescape: Torment; the last third or so of the game was made by a different team, and you can definitely tell, but it's worth getting through to the ending.

EDIT:

I forgot to mention this, but it might be important to some people: regarding combat, in DA:O it's just ok, in P:T and FNV it's just there to get you through the story, and Disco Elysium doesn't even really have combat. BG3 has by far the best combat, so if that's something that is important to you, then it's worth to keep that in mind.

Yeah, god forbid people get angry when others make sexist remarks! They must be real misogynists for not liking sexism!

If you replaced the "man" with "black man" or "black person", or if someone said this with immigrants, it wouldn't need to be explained to you or anyone why this is a pretty fucked up thing to say, but for some reason when it's just "man" it's okay and anyone who disagrees is a misogynist, according to you. If I made a general frustrated remark about women, plenty of people would take issue with it, and I don't think you'd would be saying "it wasn’t meant to be a debate, it was meant to illustrate a point", would you?

How about just stop using sexist rhetoric? There are a lot of people on your side who would agree with you if you just dropped the needlessly sexist and divisive rhetoric.

And before you get there - and if not you then I'm sure someone will think of saying it - yes, it's true that the world and system we live in isn't as hostile to men as women, black people, and immigrants, but progressive spaces definitely tend to be the opposite. And believe it or not, that actually has an effect with pushing younger men into the arms of the alt right; you can insult them and just call them fascists if you like, but that doesn't change the reality that young hormonal men going into progressive spaces and seeing this kind of rhetoric will feel excluded, pushed out, and like the world is against them.

When I studied Computer Engineering, I met several other students who had a lot of trouble using the Windows file system, and navigating a file system through a terminal was a Herculean task for them.

Most people growing up now, and since over a decade ago, are only tech savvy in the sense they know how to use smartphones, tablets, and social media; none of those require any understanding of file systems, and even using desktops doesn't really require it that much for most people.

I was gonna make this a reply, but I guess it fits as a general comment.

There will always be some excuse to maintain the status quo.

In the USA people say it's because of "first past the post"(*). But in Portugal there is no such thing. We have a parliamentary system (technically semi-presidential, but for practical purposes parliamentary) but somehow people still find an excuse to always maintain the status quo. Since we've been a democracy (49 years), only two parties have ever been in power. Before the last elections, we had 9 parties in parliament. After several decades of incompetence, and everyone complaining about how corrupt the system and politicians are, the same party won the last elections with a majority vote, and now we have 8 parties in parliament. Basically, we're not too far from a two-party system.

This happens because there's always some excuse to compromise; in my country, the excuse/logic to rally behind the centrists and put them in power is something like "look how much the extreme right is growing, we have to keep them at bay! Plus, the other parties are probably as bad and corrupt anyway!", with the expression "useful vote" thrown around a lot. Never mind the fact the far right are growing due to the incompetence of the people currently in power, and that, being a parliamentary system, a vote for any non-right wing party already works to keep the right at bay. And the cherry on top is how everyone gas lits themselves with "the other parties that never had any power are probably as bad and corrupt as the parties that have been in power for decades and which we know for a fact are bad and corrupt".

This isn't very eloquently written, but hopefully the point comes across: some people always expect you to "compromise" with them by doing exactly what they want, while they don't compromise at all; and some people create a self full fulling prophecy by convincing themselves from the start that there are no other options. I can't speak 100% for the USA because I don't understand the system as well, but at least in my country the reality is that if everyone actually voted for the people they most align with, we could still keep the right at bay and not put all the power in the hands of the "moderates".

(*)but, unless I am massively mistaken, if a third party gets enough votes they will still get seats in parliament which should still give them power, or at least still take power away from another.