I'll respond to your posts tomorrow, but this is where I'm at for tonight:

Here's my edgy fursona, don't hate.



Escaped from Helgen, went with the Thief stone, then cleared out the Embershard mine and everything in it. Sold stuff in Riverwood and undertook the quest for the Golden Claw. Cleared Bleak Falls Barrow, learned my first shout and then went through the South Brittleshin Pass. The necromancer in there was probably my strongest enemy yet. On my way back, I found a hut with a lady in who turned out to be a witch trying to start a coven. And that's pretty much it so far.

Any place I can store items early on? I have a tendency to appropriate myself illegal goods, so I can't exactly sell it in normal stores.

Next up: go to Whiterun for the main quest, I suppose.

So I got the special edition against better judgement and just started playing. Figured I'd make a thread about it because why not. Might as well make this a little interactive.

Goal: get all achievements and play the DLC
Class: stealth archer (because what else)

Literally just starting, so tell me what to do. I'm playing as a Kahjiit, but nothing else has happened yet.

Do I go with the Stormcloaks or Imperials?

Also, any suggestions for difficulty? I'm playing on expert / master now.

Drivers tests are pretty easy. It's basically just use the common sense you won't use when you're actually licensed.

I know very few people who passed on their first try. Might be different in the US, but they're pretty tough here. My brother was failed within 5 minutes for driving too close to the cars on the side and his girlfriend was told to just turn around and head back because she used her turn signal too late when starting to park. You're graded on 20 something categories and 1 "bad" is an instant fail, while 2 "insufficients" are too. Not looking forward to it, lol.

Quote from: Flee on November 16, 2016, 03:56:29 PM

Quote from: DAS B00T x2 on November 16, 2016, 03:41:40 PM

What the fuck, Flee, aren't you older than me?

Not sure how old you are, but I'm 23. Which is pretty old not to have your license, but it's not uncommon here. Passing the drivers tests here takes quite a bit of effort and time. And I kind of fucked up by letting my theory permit expire the first time, forcing me to redo certain things and wait a while longer.

Oh, same age.
That's just weird to me. Being in a rural area, everyone pretty much learns to drive as soon as they can. I had my license at sixteen and my motorcycle endorsement at eighteen.

Yeah, pretty big difference here. Most people bike when possible and public transportion is pretty top notch too. Never needed a car for anything, nor would it have been useful. Still, getting a license might prove useful some time.

Title says it all. Got my practical drivers test tomorrow morning. Give me advice or ask me whatever. Here's to hoping I pass.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying you're completely wrong. It's reasonable to assume that introducing people from a different background and with often different values into a society could lead to more crime. It definitely makes sense and there's certainly some truth to it. I'm just saying that it's a very contentious area of research and that using sources like that is extremely risky. Immigration is not exactly my area of law, but the actual proper research does not really lend much credence to the idea that crime and immigration are so tightly linked. From a scientific / criminological perspective, the link between crime and migration is really quite flimsy, especially so when it comes to violent crime.

I'll give you a few resources to look at, if you want. For example, one of the foremost pieces of research into immigration and crime in Western Europe found that there's no demonstrable link between crime victimization and immigration. Others went even further and found a negative relation between immigrant status and property crime (meaning that immigrants typically commit less property crime than natives). Other research corroborates that for many developed countries, including the US. And this seems to be the case for several and different developed European countries. While other research does find that immigrants are disproportionally represented in crime statistics, we also have a pretty decent idea on why it is the case. Immigrants are often dumped in poor areas with already high crime rates. They have lacking knowledge of the language, are largely forced to stay within their same circles and receive poor education. Their background and values is likely one of the least relevant factors for criminal behavior, and it's instead got everything to do with their living conditions and socioeconomic status. Put people at the very bottom of the ladder where opportunities are slim and an already criminal environment is very present, and you're going to see that reflect in their behavior.

I did not mean for this to be so long, but yeah. Not saying you're wrong, as immigrants will definitely cause crime (as would any increase in population). Immigration is a delicate subject and I'm absolutely not arguing in favor of unrestricted mass migration. But this idea that letting immigrants in will bring forth a wave of rape and crime simply is not supported by proper research and statistics. I work with this kind of stuff all the time and a serious dose of scepticism is always necessary when looking at crime stats. Absolute crime numbers going up can just be caused by a mere increase in population and would've been the same had there been 0 immigrants entering the country. A sudden increase in crime numbers can be caused by a change in the law, a legal definition of a crime or police recording practices. A crime stat on crimes caused by "immigrants" might neglect to mention that "immigrant" might have been understood as anyone with a different nationality, thereby including hundreds of thousands of people coming from Eastern Europe / other developed countries in the numbers. One country doing so much worse than another might be entirely caused by them defining crimes differently (rape could be any forced sex act or actual penetration) or recording them in different ways (including all reports in statistics or just convictions).

Long story short, my point is just that a large degree of caution is due here. Statistics tell far from the whole story and (see my first link) fear of immigrant crime is often way higher than actual criminal acts. And that is something that a lot of outlets with an agenda take advantage of. The Gatestone Institute you linked, for example, is notorious for its anti-immigration and anti-muslim rhetoric and bias. That obviously doesn't make them wrong from the start, but they have a vested interest in selling half truths and drawing suggestive and often incorrect assumptions from isolated events or mere statistics. Immigration definitely isn't all rainbows and butterflies and it should definitely be discussed and criticised without it being considered racism or xenophobia. But the idea sold by some that immigrants always bring a wave of crime and rape with them is, to my knowledge, based primarily on half truths and shoddy / biased interpretations of numbers in a way which is not supported by proper and peer reviewed research.

Apologies for the length of this post, lol.

I'm in the process of ordering it. Reaching the point of no return soon.

However, if we look at Europe, it's not hard to imagine the situation in America going in that direction.

Just gonna point out that:

- the official report your first link cited also says that the effect of immigrants on crime is small, largely attributed to simple increases of population and most prevalent at refugee centers due to the overpopulation there. Healthy scepticism is definitely due here. This and this are pretty good reads on it.

- your second link illustrates that the increase has to do with increased confidence among victims due to the increased openness about reporting rapes and the changes in recording practice of British law enforcement personnel, while not pointing any fingers to immigration at all. Much of the "immigrants cause rape" rhetoric is often largely unfounded. Even in commonly cited instances like Sweden, the actual numbers do not corroborate the arguments and the link I gave above on Germany reveals that less than 1% of all crime committed by immigrants (which already isn't disproportionally high) is of a sexual nature.

I'm not too interested in this particular debate, but you should be careful when making arguments like that.

I get off work in 2 hours and after reading about people playing the Skyrim Special Edition, I am seriously fighting the urge not to go out and buy it when I'm done working.

The game seems to have some pretty, eh, polarised reception, so please do persuade or dissuade me (not) to get it.

Backstory: I beat it when it came out on the 360 back in 2011 and then went back to clean up the achievements like a year later. Haven't played any of the DLC and never beat a lot of quests, I think.

What do I do.

Went into labor the same day? That could raise reasonable doubt. I would have said no way if she ended up giving birth the next day, but the same might actually give her a case. The fact that they had to induce labor speaks for you though. I'd go ahead and say that you're not too fucked, but the US does have a pretty insane sueing culture and legal system encouraging it, so I'm not convinced either way.

Might not be a bad idea for you to get a lawyer if this would actually go somewhere. I've heard that labor and child birth costs in can get really expensive because of the American health care system, so that might make it worth it.

Quote from: Atticus on November 12, 2016, 03:48:32 PM

Notice something?

wtf

Why is this even a thing.

Because Japan.

That's a fair point. I guess while we're still here it can't hurt to try.

Although, I think that Trump's cabinet will become more educated on these issues as they settle down -- I'm sure it's common knowledge that these people are lacking in the experience department. But you know what? Experience can be gained, and I think we should give them a chance.

Sure, but if this turns out to be real then I think there's some reasonable cause for alarm. Inexperienced is putting an environmental scientist with no previous experience in policymaking in such a position. He'll work together with others and those before him and he'll learn. Putting people who have made a living going against nearly unanymously accepted scientific facts? That's a lot more than just inexperience. That's potentially dangerous. In my eyes, this is comparable to putting the CEO of a major pharmaceutical chain (who has spent years fighting safety requirements and clinical trials because he'd make more money if he could sell potentially unsafe and untested drugs) in charge of the FDA (Food and Drug Administration). Or an anti-vaxxer in charge of the Department of Health.

Can they learn? Sure. But this is still cause for concern and skepticism, as their unscientific and baseless beliefs can endanger a lot of people and the environment.

Can someone explain to me why everyone is making such a big deal about climate change deniers in office when the damage that has been done is irreversible?

Because irreversible is not the same as catastrophically unstoppable. Even if the climate would already be set to change, that doesn't mean we can't stop it from getting worse or minimize the consequences.

I'm also not familiar with this supposed idea that it's all too late and in vain anyways, seeing how this is still a widely debated and researched issue that has tens of thousands of experts worldwide looking for solutions and praising programs like the Paris agreement. So because of that, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say there's a very good reason to still try and protect our environment and climate rather than saying it's all futile at this point.

Yeah, it's been a big topic of conversation among my UK partners. Still gotta read the act in its entirety.

Quote from: Flee on November 10, 2016, 09:36:13 AM

Quote from: clum clum on November 10, 2016, 09:30:48 AM

Quote from: Flee on November 10, 2016, 09:26:48 AM

Quote from: clum clum on November 10, 2016, 08:37:23 AM

If Hillary won the Right wouldn't have reacted in such a childish, emotional, violent way.

I think that's a very baseless and unfounded statement indicating a good amount of bias.

It's also a very redundant thing to say, considering we won.

If something is extremely baseless, unfounded and redundant, why say it at all?

Why not?

Fair point. We are a backwater forum for the sole purpose of discussing whatever after all. Still, I think it's a biased and incorrect thing to say.