I know the feeling. I even though I kind of want to play some bigger single player games, I tend to put those off to spend hours playing comfort games. More generally, I get really overwhelmed by really complex games. I still want depth, but I want it to come from gameplay interactions rather than wrangling the controls or messing with a giant character build or something.

That's why I end up playing a lot of things like card games, roguelikes, etc. Things that are really easy to start playing, easy to keep repeating, but which still provide interesting, varied experiences. Think about it, if I play something like Slay The Spire, all I have to do to learn the controls is to click and drag a card. There are builds, but those builds are constructed through a bunch of small, manageable choices.

Complete left field recommendation: It's not a repeatable game, but if you somehow haven't played it yet, Portal is a masterclass in this kind of depth without complexity design and perfectly tutorializes what little you do have to learn.

deep rock galactic

I second DRG. It's my friend and I's go to game whenever we want to chill and chat. We've been playing it for so long that we have all the progression stuff, so the minerals are basically useless to us, but I still go around collecting them because it's just fun. Also the space rig has so many fun little intractables that sometimes when we're done with missions we just goof off in there for a while until we eventually log off.

It actually happens fairly frequently, but almost entirely as reaction to unexpected gameplay moments as opposed to any deliberate comedy written in by the designers. Some of that can be funny too, but only really to the point of a grin or light chuckle.

I remember a moment playing BG 3 when one of my characters just got yeeted into lava literally at the start of the fight. I laughed my ass off then went on with what ended up being probably a much more difficult than intended fight.

Sometimes it can be something as simple as the physics or an NPC bugging out.

I think the answer is "yes" and "it depends on what you mean." What is better or worse? For whom is it better or worse? Are we talking about the causes or the results?

If we are talking about results and how they affect the majority of people, yes, it is worse. Wealth concentration has increased. The environment has gotten worse. There is more war now than there was pre-2000, etc. All of these were problems in the past, but the course of history has naturally intensified them over time.

But a lot of what you're talking about are causes: What politics leads to these things? Was it better back then and it getting worse now is why things are worse? And to that I say: Not really. America has been this cruel and greedy for a long time and that past greed and cruelty directly contributed to how things are today. Perhaps some of this feeling is you just becoming more aware of things, but part of it is that the politicians of that day cared more about keeping up the mask. They weren't any less cruel, but they were better at hiding it behind a facade of respectability.

So what's changed and what has stayed the same? The core feature running through all of this history is capitalism. Capitalists have immense power by virtue of their control over wealth and production and therefore the state primarily represents their interests. They might have different strategies for accomplishing that, different personalities, or different secondary priorities, but regardless of which politician is in office, support for capitalists is the primary concern.

This support for capital has to contend with various forces of history. Technology, labor power, geopolitics, etc all affect capitalism and the government must respond accordingly.

The period between the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 and 9/11 2001 was considered to be a period in which the US became the unrivaled power in the world. It may have appeared more peaceful, but that was due to a lack of meaningful geopolitical rivals to fight against. But it's not like it stopped developing the military industrial complex during that time. It was still prepared to exert it's power over the world, violently if necessary. This changed post 2001 because they finally got push back for their imperialism and had someone to openly fight. And with a new foreign enemy, the US once again had something to direct people's fear and anger away from capitalism.

Some combination of globalization and advances in automation broke what little power workers had managed to earn during the mid-20th century. This meant that the government and capitalists didn't have to give as many concessions to workers as they used to and the resulting economic losses created an angry and desperate population. This anger COULD have been directed towards the root of the problem if there were better class consciousness in the US, but instead racists were able to capitalize on it to direct people to their causes.

The last major development to talk about here is the rise of the internet. On one had, this enabled people to see things and communicate with people they never would have been able to in the past. The potential for this to open people's minds and connect people was tremendous and obviously a potential threat to capitalism as it wasn't as easy to control the flow of information anymore. Unfortunately the dark side is that algorithmic social media has managed to bring out the worst in people. Some of that is due to deliberate manipulations by platform owners, but some of it is just the unfortunate consequences of how mass human psychology interacts with an algorithm designed to optimize the amount of time people spend looking at ads and getting others to spend time looking at ads. Certain kinds of content, usually ones that elicit strong emotions, are more likely to get people's attention than others. So in the absence of that class consciousness, it's pretty easy for hatemongers to get their messages to spread.

I suppose my point is, when you get these kinds of feelings, it helps to try to learn some more and take an analytical approach to understand better and hopefully find a way forward. Just feeling like things are generically worse is an oversimplification that misses the underlying forces responsible for that feeling. We wouldn't be where we are now if things were different in the past, so just thinking of the past as being better misses the role it plays in the present.

How do you feel about sun dried tomatoes?

I haven't tried them. I guess I'll do that sometime.

In a broad sense, I don't agree with the premise that technology is always good and it's about how society chooses to use it.

Technology enables people to do things that previously weren't possible. It gives people powers that those who don't/can't use the technology don't have. It fundamentally changes the power dynamics between people. You don't get to choose how someone else uses the technology. You have to deal with its existence.

For example, guns. Guns are a weapon that enables people to inflict violence on others very effectively without much if any athletic prowess. Previously someone who was more athletic could have power over someone weaker than them. With guns, the weaker person could be on an even playing field.

Now, guns are pretty difficult to manufacture, so an authority might be able to effectively control the availability of guns. But now lets say someone discovers a method that enabled basically anyone to make a gun cheaply in their house. Now it's harder to stop people from getting them. It becomes more accessible, and once again this changes the potential power dynamic in society. We could all come to an agreement on how we want to use guns, but that doesn't really matter if some guy can secretly build a gun in his garage, put it in his pocket, and just go shoot someone. The very existence of this technology has changed the nature of social reality.

Now compare that to AI. Generative AI has enabled people to produce novel media that is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish from authentically generated media very quickly. While this is technically something that was possible before, it was far more difficult and slow. There is media in the world today that could not have existed without AI. (If only in so far as the quantity being larger means that things that wouldn't have been made in the same time period now can be.) AI isn't even a physical device. A computer program is essentially an idea translated into a language a computer can understand. It might be difficult to learn how to program, but anyone with a computer can do it. Anyone can learn how to write a computer virus, so now we have to live in a world where we all have to be careful of viruses. Anti-virus software changes that dynamic again, but it hasn't changed the fact that someone can learn to write a program that gets around them. Now, AI as it works now is a bit harder to make on your own with just knowledge because it requires large quantities of data to train the models. So technologies and policies that could restrict people's access to data could limit the availability of AI technology. But future developments may discover ways to make AI models with little or no data, at which point it would become easy for anyone to have that technology. So even if right now we put in place laws to restrict how AI companies operate so people don't have easy access to the AI models or perhaps the AI models come built with logic that helps to identify their outputs, those laws would be meaningless if it were trivial for anyone to make their own.

Now, it's going to be different for every different kind of technology and it's interesting to discuss, but the root of any human decisions around the technology is the fundamental nature of what the technology is, does, and enables.

But if it's not wrong, then that is a useful answer. If the people who are committing crimes are a military force that is willing to use force to avoid being held accountable by law... questions that depend on the rule of law being in effect are missing the point. Laws need to be enforced by some kind of superior force to the people being subject to the law. Ideally that force is mutually agreed upon by society through some political process. Modern democracies are supposed to base that legitimacy on democratic will restrained by constitutional limitations. But clearly that doesn't strictly need to be the case for a state to operate. The most base level of political legitimacy for the use of force to govern is the mere unwillingness of the population to use their own violence to counter it. If things ever got bad enough, the thing that keeps that in check is ultimately organized resistance and revolution.

Going back to liberal democracy though, even with all of our theoretical restrictions on power, ultimately all of that only works based on some combination of the government believing in and choosing to follow those principles and if all else fails... revolution. Just think about how historically significant the first ever peaceful transition of power was. The people with all the guns just decided not to use them to keep their power. Think about how crazy it is that some of the people in the government wanted George Washington to become king and he was just like "Nah. Pass. That's not how we're gonna do things anymore."

If they decided otherwise... what was a judge going to do about that? Write a strongly worded opinion paper? Then what? In order for anything to happen either the gov needed agree or enough other people with guns would have to organize to do something about it. Even if you have some police force to represent the courts independent of the main government, that police force needs to be full of people who agree with the rule of law and they have to be strong enough to enforce that court decision.

So getting back to our situation... if the main government and the military and police under its direct control has decided that the rule of law isn't important to it, then even if you can point to the laws they're breaking and get the courts to rule against them... you need to answer the question of who is going to make those court decisions a reality. If it isn't going to be ICE, the US Military, or any of the other organizations engaged in the illegal activity, then it needs to be someone else and at that point it's a war and the laws don't really matter anymore anyway.

So that's the decision tree for this question. If you think the government isn't entirely run by fascists, then we can discuss the legal question. If your answer is that the government is corrupt and fascist, then answering the legal question is producing answers that are inherently incorrect and misleading. If you do genuinely believe the opposite, then yes, just giving the fascist answer is incorrect and misleading. In either case, the path we go down, if incorrect, leads us away from the more productive conversation. But the question of which of these two answers is the correct starting point for the interesting and necessary discussion.

I don't know. On one hand, if the crime is so bad that it otherwise warrants lifetime imprisonment...

a) maybe there is a line past which it's deserved. I do generally view life as being something sacred and not something you should be able to take from others, but it's a fuzzy moral question as to whether there are some acts that are so heinous that they would challenge that view. Maybe it has to be for a harm at a societal rather than personal level? Like maybe taking one person's life isn't a warranted punishment for them taking a single other life, but perhaps say, a Nazi has harmed not just so many people, but some essential essence of the society that keeps us happy and healthy. Maybe THAT is bad enough to merit the ultimate violation of personal rights?

b) Is the alternative THAT much better? Is condemning someone to spend the rest of their life in a tiny room with no hope of them ever getting to do something that they want much better than death? Is it really living a life? (Granted, my opinion on that point is colored by my depression. I genuinely think if things got bad enough in my life suicide would be a preferable alternative. A healthier person might have a different view.)

That said, regardless of the above considerations, there is also the issue of the permanence of the punishment not allowing for correcting mistakes. Humans aren't infallible. Plenty of people have been wrongly convicted. If they're merely put in prison then we can always free them if we later learn of our mistake. If we've already killed them... ooops...? Nothing we can do. So perhaps that issue overrides any other moral considerations.