I will be playing later today but the IGN and Gamespot reviews seem to confirm what I most feared: Starfield doesn't do space exploration well or rather it doesn't really do it at all. The promise of No Man's Sky but with the storytelling scope and combat gameplay of a AAA studio is what got me hyped. Turns out this gameworld feels a lot more like a disjointed set of cities than actual galaxy/set of star systems.

I actually view the density and impracticality of owing a car as positives. Americans seem to hate both of these things but I would point out that the alternative followed by most of the rest of the country (driving everywhere and living in single family homes) has a ton of downsides.

As mentioned, New York has a ton of culture, but it also has a ton of professional opportunity. There are multiple industries where being in New York is a huge advantage. Yes, this is still the case even in the age of working from home. I think this is indicative of the people there. Yes, they can be rude but there is also a lot of talent and intelligence there.

Agreed however, that the cost of living is out of control. NYC will always be more expensive than most of the county where there's simply less demand for goods and services, but the cost of housing is the fault of local government. There needs to be A LOT more housing supply.

Nonetheless, it's arguably the best American city. Dynamic and interesting, not to mention relatively safe (compared to American standards for cities). 9/10

@espoac: My understanding is that 538's forecast is the result of aggregating polls and then adjusting and weighting based on objective factors (GDP, unemployment etc.) and subjective inputs.

So maybe where they got it wrong in the Senate forecast was in the adjustment and weighting of the raw inputs coming from polls. Just my hypothesis though.

And it is suuuccchh a relief to see these election deniers lose.

I can't imagine a world where Trump loses the primary to DeSantis and then fully acquiesces. Would anyone at all be surprised if Trump mounted a run as an Independent and then spoiled the race for Republicans?

Not that I want to see Republicans do well at all in 2024 but were I a GOP voter I'd be hoping for two things: 1) that the Dems don't wise up and nominate someone younger and more dynamic than Biden and 2) that Trump is thoroughly rejected and cast aside well before the Republican primaries. If those two conditions are not met, I don't see a path to success for Republicans in 2024. I suspect a Trump-Biden rematch would play out much the same way it did the first time.

@girlusocrazy:

"But I don't know who knew exactly what to expect."

You raise a really interesting question because if I look at the polls (at least the few I am looking at), the Dems' strong showing really shouldn't be much of a surprise.

NYT Siena polls showed Fetterman winning 49-44 for instance at the end of October. Not exactly spot on, but a respectable margin of error for sure. I wonder if the misses of 2016 and to a lesser degree 2020, have taught us to distrust polls a little too much. It's not just laypeople either as 538's forecast model had Republicans winning control of the Senate.

@eoten: For the most part, we're talking about Latin America and maybe India here. Can you share an example of a leader from the modern American left pointing to one of these countries as a model for holistic economic or political development?

I find it a bit embarrassing for Republicans that this is what's now considered good politics. If this move doesn't lay bare that the GOP is the party of resentment, I am not sure what does. As a Chicagoan, I see this as a net benefit for the city. The evidence on immigration is crystal clear; immigrants support economic growth and contribute more in taxes than they take. So thanks Abbott for the enlarged tax base.

I only regret that immigrants in question had to be used as pawns as Abbott did nothing to coordinate their arrival with the city and their short term situation may indeed be difficult. Doesn't seem very Christian of him...

@eoten: Your ethical framework would preclude any and all public spending on education, healthcare, the economy, basically everything that makes modern life possible. You seem to value only an individual's right to control their own money and have no regard for overall quality of life. Yeah, that's silly.

Your argument on the moral issue is very, very silly. It's broad enough that you could use it to argue against any government program, including public K-12 education.

Public spending on things that benefit society overall is a moral good in my book. Accessible higher education is obviously a benefit to society and this program is a step in the right direction. Perhaps you don't agree but I suspect you also take the fact that we don't live in an Ayn Rand Objectivist hellhole for granted.

Your motives and those of other conservatives are suspect to me though. Where is the moral outrage over the wealthy paying little to no taxes? Where is the outrage over corporations doing the same? Why did Conservatives oppose a bill that would help rectify the fact that Medicare essentially writes a blank check to pharma companies?

@eoten: I didn't answer your question because its premise is incorrect. This program's impact on non-borrowers will be negligible if not non-existent for the simple fact that its overall cost is very small i.e. less than 1% of annual federal revenue. Perhaps the moral question you bring up would be worthwhile if the program were likely to cause higher taxes or inflation but that simply isn't the case.