JoeSchmuckatelli

Or maybe I'm totally confused. I haven't played the game in a while - and found a bunch of saves when I went to start the game today (second day of new career). I notice that you're looking at the saves via a windows file folder view: I'm looking at the loading screen continue saved game page... wait... hold the phone. Okay - it looks like the game does list only the career names in the start screen. (Seems I've started more careers/science/sandbox than I was aware of). --- the feature does not, however, let me choose a particular save within that file; merely to continue. So, I'm presuming it is continuing last save. Okay - yeah, then once I'm in the game and looking at KSC I can do the 'load save' thing again... this time only seeing the various saves in that career folder. Huh. Well - okay, its functional but not intuitive.

Don't know if possible - but I'd like to be able to associate saved games with specific careers/ efforts. Currently, all saves go to one big list of saved games. Fine for the first run-through. But it can get cluttered after a short time - especially if you start a second or third career effort. Being able to start a career, which creates a subfile for subsequent saves would be great. EDIT: after review (below) --- the Save Game function does save game saves in individual career folders; what I'd like to see is the ability to find those sub-saves from the main menu. Thus if I save JebInOrbit late at night, then JebLanded right before signing off... as it is currently, when I restart it automatically plonks me into the last save. But what if during the night it dawns on me that I should revert to JebInOrbit and land elsewhere? Currently, only from inside the game (when you can see KSC etc) after loading last save can a player load up a prior save. I'd like the functionality of being able to choose which save to load in a given career from the start screen(s).

Yep. I would not want to slow down rocket availability (I.e. Limit the initial tech to only planes). This is, ultimately, a rocket game. I'd like to see the initial starting tech offer just enough 'stuff' to build a basic plane, just as we get to build a basic rocket. After that, being able to unlock stuff to make planes better makes sense, especially as you progress to space planes. (functionally it really only takes 5-6 rocket flights to unlock planes, presuming you know how to grind science - but it seems weird to me that you have fly rockets to unlock planes) Planes also teach about balance (COM / COL) better than rockets, initially, b/c the first rockets are just straight tubes.

Combat vets would disagree. Nicotine has been used by humans for thousands of years. It is both calming and helps you focus. Demon Alcohol was once maligned as well. We don't need no more prohibition from the fanatics

Just started a new career... and I've got a ton of 'run science' missions that are quite easily accomplished with planes (measure temp at BE-4 below 14,000, etc). Would be really nice to have planes available early. I know it's a space game - which means rocketry, but it would be great to have at least the most basic jet plane available. Perhaps as a parallel tech tree that eventually merges with the larger tree (for spaceplanes). Google did not answer this for me... but has it been discussed? Oh - and will joystick / HOTAS work for plane flight in 2?

Sweden would revolt. Funny thing: tobacco is not actually all that bad for you. Smoking is. Just don't say you want to ban smoking around the legalize Marijuana crowd... They think their smoke is special

The bitterness of a good, spicy mole negra is a treat. Cincinnati 'chili' is not. I think the problem is that you sit down thinking that you are going to get a familiar blend of flavor like most SW chili....and then it's sweet and reeks of cinnamon - plus there is spaghetti in it. Mind you, I love cinnamon rolls, and etc... But ugh.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/could-we-chat-with-whales-180978956/ Perhaps we can ask them?

That was cool! I love places like that. It's interesting - this little discussion has me realizing that I don't actually know whether my chili is Texas (my mom grew up there) or Arizona - we use several kinds of meat, several types of chiles, and a couple kinds of beans plus tomatoes, corn and etc. I like mine served atop a bowl of rice (but we don't put the rice in the chili). Has me wondering: can they even make something like that for the ISS (and how would you clean up???) - or are they limited to something like an MRE pack?

I always thought this was Mark Hamill, but he's only in the prequel:

My inner Arizonan is rolling his eyes.* Spelling differences aside, we probably agree on what chili /chile should taste like. You'd be surprised what people get away with on the East side of the Mississip. It's a travesty. Note to the Cincinnati weirdos: that sugary, cinnamon, spaghetti filled goo is NOT right, NOT good and definitely NOT CHILI! *Actually, I really appreciate you telling me this: I did not know there was a difference in New Mexico! Check out the Brits, gooning up the spelling again for no good reason. https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/usage-chili-chilli-chile (what can you expect from people who feel the need to pronounce every vowel in any given word) glacier? "glass-ii-err". SMH.

Also tonight is a good chance for aurora in the north https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/aurora-30-minute-forecast https://weather.com/science/space/video/northern-lights-could-be-seen-by-millions-this-weekend

Mmmmm... Spaaace Chili

For those interested in virgin births: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/10/california-condors-are-capable-virgin-birth/620517/

Fancy!

I've had agilator a time or two down South and it's ai'ight... But I still prefer hoofed critters over those with claws

From this, I get a 'fragility of the new' vibe. I constantly read the critique that Humans are but a blip in the evolutionary time line. Yet that argument often blurs how long other creatures actually lived. Take Stegosaurus. 'the Stegosaurus roamed the Earth during the late Jurassic period, between 156 and 144 million years ago." So - they enjoyed, what, 12 million years? Humans have been recognizably human going on 2 million (depending upon whether you are willing to acknowledge the humanity of Denosovans, Neanderthals and other pre-Cro Magnon walking, tool using, decedent burying furless apes) Yes - the ages of the dinosaur dominant period were hundreds of millions of years... But mammals have been here since the Triassic, too and they (our ancestors) survived the comet. Individual species don't often survive hundreds of millions of years unchanged - even the crocadilians of today are different from those that ate dinosaurs. So if we speculated that 10 million years is a reasonable time for a species to exist... Absent some disaster we should enjoy another 8-10 million years. I don't think it should be glossed over that humans are a single species adapted to and populating every continent and every land biome. That is a phenomenal achievement for any genus or family, much less a species. I call it stacking the deck. We also don't have evidence that it's not viable long term. We are apparently unique in the experiment of Life on this planet. The cool thing is that we are self aware enough to be concerned about our own impact on the planet - and to spend time arguing about what to do about it. It wasn't all that long ago that humors and vapors were inexplicably killing our loved ones. Average Life expectancy in the 1850s was below 40. We've demonstrated significant self interest in eradicating the things (and behaviors, c.f. Cholera) that killed us before... I see no reason why human self interest won't address the problems we have created with our industry alongside with the advances that have prolonged our lives https://teamseas.org/ (example)

Mike - I'm starting to think that we have very different world views. I'm optimistic about the future - having seen the damage you describe but also seen people change behaviors and clean up our act. Are you so pessimistic about the future?

Really very much appreciate this video and all the news! So much to look forward to!

Certainly not Russian or British. American tanks accept the above average tanker with style.

Okay - so no die needed. Just dirtier water. Thanks fellers.

I'd still argue that humans are generalists. Sure we 'specialize' in a variety of cultural tasks, but I can take the most Kardashian adapted human city dweller and in 3 months train them to be physically and mentally tough enough to survive anywhere on the planet. Well... almost any - there are some who've 'opted out' via dietary choices or who have preexisting conditions that wouldn't allow them to succeed - but generally speaking any modern human should still be capable of running with our hunter-gatherer ancestors in short order.

a fascinating subject in and of itself Both extremely good examples; but without specific knowledge, I'm wondering if there actually is a single species of bacteria or archaea or protozoa (not in human guts, btw) that is actually as ubiquitous across multiple biomes. From my scant knowledge, it seems that like most mammals, different species of microbe live in different habitats. Rats and dogs could be said to be similarly ubiquitous to humans - but the truth is their 'habitat' is 'wherever humans live'. I did ponder about this; and it requires asking - why did life leave the water in the first place... and thus we are back to Adams and his dolphins (which when measuring water vs land coverage) are more ubiquitous than us! (Although, if we really wanted to quibble: dolphins limit themselves to only the top 1,000 feet of their habitat - whereas we have people living from the surface of the sea up to 16,700 feet (5.1 klicks for those so inclined).

Certainly, the agodiles and crockagators have been in their niches for millenia, and cognitive ability hasn't been required for their success. But I wonder if you are looking myopically at this? Yes, the argument is often phrased the way Adams mocks it, (which results in anthrocentric bias)... But that misses what I'm referring to. Only one species has populated every clime and place of the planet. A strategy that seems pretty good for survival when niches dry up. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/science/2019/jul/12/sahara-was-home-to-some-of-largest-sea-creatures-study-finds So if the purpose of life given to a species is to thrive and reproduce and survive - not being stuck in a given niche or climate or region seems to be a bonus. What feature enables this?

I'm enjoying these tremendously! Never heard of purple sulfur bacteria or anoxygenic photosynthesis. Cool! (they also quote from Merlin Sheldrake's book in the vid on fungi)