I don't think that's so bad. There's a lot of topics I cover but a core of it would be history and games, and games about history. "Media analysis" in all the vague ways that means anything.
10:17 ok I have watched the entire section but i dont think this is why Good AI is bad and bad AI is good. Yes, im accusing you to try to say good things are bad and bad things are good. You have stroke a good note by saying that AI has to fail because of either of historical outcome or player action, but bad AI will fail because of neither of them. How many times I've seen ottomans or france that just wander aimlessly getting reduced to pieces while i play Malaya. Good AI should approximate historical outcomes! If anything, it's initial condition that should dictate historical outcome, and good AI should still suffer with bad initial condition. But world history being complex, it shouldnt be predetermined. This is not player vs AI, it's AI vs AI vs AI vs ... . The best feelings i get in this kind of game is being able to slip through titans to be a viable 3rd kingdom, and the titans cant stop me not because their AI is bad, but because theyre keep busy by other titans. There are also lots of turning points that's too chaotic for the best AI to manage, like whatever the fuck should happen in Burgundian inheritance. It'd already add spices enough from game to game, so we shouldn't rely on bad AI to "give chance to player".
i just want to say thanks for making this video. it's one of my favorites, even though the subject matter is a bit on the heavy side, to say the least, but i really appreciate the way you go through and explain the history of all this, especially the lesbian history stuff.
Tbh the more I study spesific cases, the more critical I become of the idea of studying colonialism as a whole. Specialy when they try to lump in so many centuries of history into a single theory. It will usualy lead to an eurocentrict narrative, that ugnores the agency of the colonised people.
Because they didn’t have the time or money. Any other questions? Or did you seriously spend 10 minutes asking an easy to answer question? 😂 Wait you’re mad about a personal opinion? 😂
Both environment and genetics will impact a population's cultural evolution. Some populations, due to mutation, will have different average intelligences and different average social characteristics. Their environment will give them certain advantages as well, and shape cultural characteristics. The idea that Europe's geography effected its ability to conquer the world can be 100% true, but this doesn't mean that genetics play no part. Also, Jared Diamond is a Jew whose parents both immigrated to the United States from Easter Europe (particularly Bessarabia) either during or (more likely) following World War One, which will undoubtably have influenced his views of Europeans as a hostile people. (My assumption is that his father emigrated from Moldova after it was annexed by Romania during the Russian Revolution, but I have no actual evidence outside of the small info on his wiki). I don't care if it makes people uncomfortable, someone's racial background is relevant to their work when their work centers on race.
TL:DW is that Rosencreutz wants to discourage the attempts to make a model for anything in historiography because to make a claim, you must take a stand and shed nuance and ambiguity. GGS is flawed, but ultimately the best holistic explanation of Europe's sudden rise to global dominance that doesn't rely on concepts like Europeans being inherently superior or divine intervention
To be honest, I never noticed until this video. The Chairmen are a reference to Frank Sinatra (AKA The Chairman of the Board), who wore suits in many colors, including black, chalk stripe, gray, tan, and even white so it still fit, IMO
I will always hold the belief that timing (in regards to prior Eurasian events and international circumstance on a millennia scale) an culture (religious and cultural values, ideals, ambitions, development path and what is more likely to be changed with greater prosperity) are the true main powers europe had. Geography is important and particularly on an early stages of development post Stone Age, but it’s the cultures that are to an extent influenced by geography that matters most. Without having all the nuances of poly vs monotheism, external views on other ethnicities, religions and cultures, likelihood of trending to liberty and improved quality of life even for slaves, accounting for chance of ending slavery and all such things result in, interest and capacity for advancement, competitiveness on a more local regional level and so on. The fact europe is so comparable to China is inescapable, the important differences including shape, but more based on ethnic, linguistic, cultural, even religious and more general geopolitical variances that make European unity so difficult. Forcing those populations culturally and locationally well suited for increasing development to now develop through need to compete for survival/autonomy from a number of neighbours, and to outcompete those neighbours in all metrics. That is what makes europe collectively so capable of outclassing China and being more interactive with its outside world. At least that’s what I see it as
Haven't read the book, but 12:30 he may have mistaken an "aardvark" as an "aardwolf", a fairly hyena-like animal. Don't know the full context however. Love the vid and your channel btw.
I'd like to submit a tangential thought regarding the Louis quote. The fact that the quotes are opposite to one another does not carry any weight in arguing that he might have said one and not the other. He reigned for a very long time and people change, say things they later come to view differently, etc.. It is very possible, that a younger, brazen Louis would have said "I am the state" to later as an older, wiser ruler more aware of his mortality, also say "I die, the state remains". Of course, it does not lend any extra credence to him having said "I am the state". But the argument does not add anything extra beyond "there is no primary source".
Neat observation, I love videos like this. As for why it was never fixed i think there's 3 possibilities. 1: Obsidian didn't notice/care. 2: The white suits look nicer when contrasting against the dark lighting of the background of the Tops Casino. 3: Making their suits black completely destroyed the PS3 version of the game and made it unplayable. The PS3 port was so bad they had to start deleting NPCs from the world just to make the game run. And this is the abysmal creation engine we're talking about here.
I was just hopping along through most of this video up through the conclusion thinking a combination of "fair point, but narrativization is the way humans think about everything unless/even if trained out of it" and "academic history/all the sciences of the academy also make assumptions and have biases but are seen as Objective Truth in problematic ways " and then I hit 49:40 and literally sat up and started saying "what???" aloud to the TV like five times. So maybe it's more that not knowing a lot about most history it's hard for me to judge claims re how egregious the liberties taken are because that summary of the events that took place in France " almost overnight" has me ready to choose violence
It feels like it would be difficult to write a sentence that was less true about the French revolution. Next to that one "let them eat cake" should get a Nobel prize in history
