Thales

The political leaders really have no intention of modifying their behavior to meet climate change goals. Virtually all their remarks boil down to virtue signalling. That also indicates that the whole climate change narrative is nothing more than "hot air". Even Greta noted that (See the post of October 18 on this thread). Mark Levin in his book “American Marxism” pointed out that: “… experience shows that for those among them who are famous, wealthy, and/or powerful, they will continue to luxuriate in a lifestyle created by capitalism.”

I appreciate that you posted that image. Very few people acknowledge that it is people who generate through their very existence a carbon footprint. Want to solve the faux issue of climate change, reduce the number of people. Focusing on a carbon footprint and CO2 emissions is a faux solution to appease the gullible masses with an "easy" solution that really does nothing more than kick the can down the road. PS: The issue of the faux climate change hysteria goes way beyond CO2 emissions. It also involves issues such as deforestation, withdrawing too much water from aquifers, over harvesting renewable resources, such as fisheries, etc. Less population means less stress on these resources.

I fully understand that there is a time lag between cancelling projects and replacing those hydrocarbons through additional production. But you need to listen to the narrative being spewed by the Biden administration. They have made it clear that they seek to reduce the production of hydrocarbons in the US. They have followed through with actual actions. Now that a supply problem is developing, they are not offering to solve the problem - they act as if they don't have any role in solving the problem. Granholm insolently laughed in the face of the reporter when he asked her to explain how the Biden administration would solve the problem. One would think that the Biden administration, as the elected leaders of the US, would proactively propose measures to solve the supply shortage. That is what leaders are supposed to do. No, but again; if one is an environmentalist, then you should be infuriated that the US is pushing its environmental costs on other countries. Think about it this way, the US gets to reduce its carbon footprint unnaturally through an accounting gimmick by transferring that carbon footprint to Saudi Arabia.

The Double Irony Of Asking OPEC To Increase Oil Production Energy Sec’y Granholm Laughs, Blames OPEC When Asked Her Plan to Increase Oil Production Biden and Granholm have been attempting to turn-off the oil and gas production spigot. One aspect of this was the canceling of the Keystone pipeline project. Recently a "new" issue has arisen, the potential cancellation of an upgrade to the Enbridge "Line 5" pipeline. This potential cancellation is currently mired in political gobbledygook and doublespeak with Biden administration of course claiming that this issue is only being "studied". Nevertheless it continues to point to the Biden administration seeking to actively put the hydrocarbon industry "out-of-business" and not to increase production despite perceived shortages. But the point that I wish to make, is that the Biden administration, if it wanted to, could increase oil and gas production by restoring projects and issuing more permits for production. It is not the responsibility of OPEC to produce more hydrocarbons for the benefit of those living in the US. For the Biden administration seemingly refuse to acknowledge that the US can't produce more hydrocarbons is repugnant misdirection. In December 2019 the US produced nearly 13 million Barrels per Day (BPD). In August 2021, the US produced just over 11 million BPD. So the Biden administration, if it wants, would seem to have an opportunity to increase production. But for Granholm to laugh at that potential and dismiss that opportunity, that is an arrogant travesty. The environmental community should also be incensed at the sleight of hand that the Biden administration is pulling. Demanding that OPEC pump more oil exports US pollution to other countries. Additionally, if OPEC produces more hydrocarbons to send to the US, they are creating more CO2 emissions and environmental hazards. The hydrocarbons will have to be transported by ship over thousands of miles. The hydrocarbons will also have to be loaded and unloaded from those ships. The loading, movement, and offloading of cargo creates opportunities for mistakes to occur.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP/ The Decline in US oil and gas production that occurred during the Trump administration can be attributed to the decline in the US gross domestic product, a period of economic recession resulting from the Covid pandemic.

https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/production/

Does terrain have an effect on a units defense/attack capabilities? For example, if a unit is on a hill and it is attacked does it receive a defensive bonus while the attacker is penalized since it is harder to attack uphill? This question could also apply to structures, such as stone towers.

It's been years since I read the book. Nevertheless, I remained puzzled. It is explained incidentally in the movie that slow objects penetrate the shields, but I didn't perceive that clue while watching the movie. This is actually a correction from what I had previously written. I was thinking about it. I finally remembered that the lack of computers is actually explained in the extended 1984 version of Dune directed by David Lynch. Also on the internet; one place, the fandom.com wiki history of Mentats.

Well, this popped-up in my news feed yesterday. "Scientists Simulate the Climate of Arrakis. It Turns Out Dune is a Pretty Realistic Exoplanet" https://beforeitsnews.com/space/2021/11/scientists-simulate-the-climate-of-arrakis-it-turns-out-dune-is-a-pretty-realistic-exoplanet-2522128.html

Watched it this past weekend. I guess my quick review, it was a bit short on expectations. I recognize that movies sometimes have to skimp on plot, but having read the book when it first came out in the Paleolithic era and then seeing both David Lynch and SyFY channel versions of Dune, I was (unrealistically) expecting more. Nevertheless, a must watch.

When it comes to the most sanctimonious advocates, in the US, regarding global warming they are nothing but "hot air". John Kerry, who has been appointed by US President Biden, to lead the charge famously stated that he had to fly private jets as he was an important person! So in the name of saving the environment, Kerry believes he has a right to pollute. Very Orwellian. To my knowledge, the elite political leaders in the US are all talk and no-action, as Greta Thunberg highlighted. They do not modify their behavior to practice what they preach. At this time, I will focus on Biden's attendance at the Glasgow climate summit. https://www.npr.org/2021/10/31/1050958992/biden-says-he-worries-that-cutting-oil-production-too-fast-will-hurt-working-peo What is significant, is that the article purposely fails to mention that Biden created an oil and gas shortage in the US by cancelling and/or prohibiting US oil and gas production. So Biden is creating the problem that he wants (demands) others to fix. Biden demands that other countries produce more oil. Biden has absolutely no sense of responsibility or apparent awareness that he created the problem that he is demanding that others solve. Furthermore, by demanding that OPEC and Russia pump more oil, all that Biden has done is to transfer the negative environmental effects from the US to foreign countries. That does not accomplish the claimed objectives of the Glasgow climate change summit to reduce CO2 emissions. There is an actual possibility that pumping oil in a foreign country with less environmental controls and the need to transport the oil thousands of miles in oceangoing tankers will actually lead to greater CO2 emissions!!!! The article also briefly touched on the logistics "traffic jam" in the US. Again, the paper fails to "point the finger of blame" at Biden. Biden is not directly responsible for this logistical nightmare. Nevertheless, Biden's administration appears to be using this "crisis" for naked political gain. Pete Buttigieg, the US Secretary of Transportation, remarked that his problem would not be solved until Biden's infrastructure legislation was passed. Additionally, the "crises" seems to involve certain administrative regulations, that if waived would allow private enterprise to resolve the crises. For example, allowing the use of non-union drivers and to allow truck drivers who own their own trucks to carry cargo. These administrative waivers are not apparently being considered. Consequently, the Biden administration is allowing the logistical nightmare to fester for political gain.

Yes, I already acknowledge that point. "... a shortcut key to close 0 A.D. may not have worked anyway..." Linux Mint. Had tried "xkill". did not work. While "xkill" did not work, I was able, through the command line, to find the process ID for 0 A.D. and kill it, thereby ending 0 A.D. and also restoring my ability to use the graphical interface. Hadn't heard of that one. Will have to keep it in mind.

Well it had to happen. O A..D. crashed and partially locked up my computer. Is there a shortcut key to force 0 A.D. to close? Given the fact my computer was partially locked-up, a shortcut key to close 0 A.D. may not have worked anyway. Furthermore, 0 A.D., in partially locking-up my computer made my system monitor unavailable, so I could not "kill" 0 A.D. by that approach. I was able to "kill" 0 A.D. by switching to a different workspace and using the command line.

To bad, I did not see your posts earlier. 0 A.D. locked-up on me. I was able to unlock it by killing the process. After that, i cam to look a the posts. Anyway ... I an not familiar with Debian. I do know that with Linux you can establish multiple work spaces. I am using Linux Mint. I have established 4 workspaces and programmed shortcut keys to access each workspace. I was able to "kill" 0 A.D. by switching to a different workspace and stopping it through the command line. An unexpected problem with 0 A.D. was that it locked my ability to use the system monitor to kill the 0 A.D. process. I was forced to use the command line which fortunately worked. So no need to reboot. I reloaded 0 A.D. based on this topic and reran the grep command: "ps -ef| grep /usr/games". I did get two results: "/bin/sh /usr/games/0ad" and "/usr/games/pyrogenesis". However, at the time 0 A.D. crashed, I got three results when I ran the grep command. The third result may have been the one where 0 A.D. got hung-up. Unfortunately, I don't recall the name of that process. Check-out the Debian forum for creating multiple workspaces and how to create keyboard shortcuts to access each workspace.

I understand what you are saying, but why is it that the AI has more income and is more efficient at bartering? "You don't really need a third player for trading." I was just hypothesizing, there are only two players, myself and the AI. Thanks for those suggestions. When the games starts, I was going for all three in a balanced approach. I will revise to focus on wood/food. The wood/stone/metal. Technically, any second market that I would build is in the middle of nowhere. No surrounding village. I guess, the markets trade with phantom entities?

When the game ends 0 A.D. displays the closing statistics. There is a tab for "market", which shows data such as income and barter efficiency as two examples. I noted that my income has been $0 and my barter efficiency if very low at 18%. The AI had substantial income and a high barter efficiency rate. I ran across a Reddit which stated that you need to build two markets and trade between them. (As in next to each other?) Is that correct? Since I'm playing "single player" against the AI, I was curious as how trade worked, since it would seem to require a "third" player?

Correct, paused the game several times. I had already been playing for several hours. Time to move-on to the tedium of everyday life.

Playing the Athenians, finally got a stalemate. Successfully killed elephants. End score favored the AI, but they were not able to get inside my defenses. I was slowly expanding my controlled territory. Called it quits when the dinner bell rang.

LOL. I'm just being stubborn. Want to find the utopian "road" to success. Anyway, its part of the learning experience.

You have identified the appropriate uses for elephants: "breaking enemy morale and stampeding through otherwise immovable infantry blocks." I've been trying to produce Athenian Cavalry Javelineer, but have been having resource shortages. I also believe that I may also be under-utilizing the Athenian Slinger Militia. Gate smashing looks to be an appropriate use. Nevertheless, it should not be easy for the elephants. Elephants would not be "rendered useless", assuming that I understand what you said correctly. Elephants, in game-play, would remain very effective at destroying buildings and disrupting infantry/cavalry formations.

Still getting clobbered at the easy level. The nemesis still being the elephants. Stone walls seem to be too weak when attacked by elephants. Historically, have elephants been successful in breaching stone defensive walls? I'm undecided about the appropriateness of the strength of stone towers and gates when attacked by elephants. I don't have a problem with the appropriateness of strength concerning buildings, such as barracks, when attacked by an elephant since they would be pretty flimsy. I would like to suggest that the defense factor of stone structures (specifically walls) versus elephants be increased.

In reviewing the manual unit list and Unit Summary Table; I did not see any (Athenian) particular unit being described as effective in combating elephants. I've been playing the Athenians, so I'm interested in learning more from their point-of-view. For example: Pezhetairos are listed as being -> "Good vs Cavalry and Infantry, .. " Which also raises the question: Are elephants in the "cavalry" category? Interesting from the Fadom Wiki page: "Hoplites Athenaikos (Athenian Hoplite) [50 f, 50 w, 1 pop, 10 sec]: Melee infantry unit. Deals triple damage against cavalry units." (emphasis added) Also: "Epilektos (City Guard) [100 f, 100 w, 50 m, 1 pop, 13 sec]: Champion melee infantry unit. Deals triple damage against cavalry units." (emphasis added) Besides the units themselves, what technological advances would be best against elephants?

Start with this website first: 0 A.D. Alpha 25 Released! Implement Single Player Campaigns [Ubuntu PPA] Skip the click-bait text "Start Download". Look for the text string "keep an eye on this Ubuntu PPA" which references the following Launchpad PPA: Unofficial Ubuntu game packages maintained by xtradeb Since posting, I see that the Official PPA has now been updated.

Thanks for the suggestion. We are leaving for a few days, so it will be a while before I can follow-up.

Depends on your definition of "disaster". You are correct the US was propping up yet another corrupt government. The US should never have gone into Afghanistan, the "graveyard of empires". From my point of view the "disaster" was the manner in how the withdrawal was handled. Biden and the general pompously declared, over time, that the Afghan army would hold-up and that all contingencies had been planned for. Well, the Afghan army collapsed, US military equipment was left behind, and the US was not prepared to evacuate US citizens from Afghanistan. That military equipment also represents a lot of technology that will now become available to Iran, China, Russia, and Pakistan. For comparison, I wonder how the Russian withdrawal (15 May 1988 and ended on 15 February 1989 ) from Afghanistan went? Ok, but I will say that it is the correct viewpoint. Of course, that was the preamble to my question that I was soliciting input for. "I've been reading second hand accounts that European leaders are less than pleased with Biden's leadership. I would be interested in knowing what the perception is from Europe." Thanks for responding as I wanted those that had better knowledge of the European take. Thanks for answering.