Orothrim

I really like Defold, have used it for a number of small games I've developed for a side hustle.

I've been thinking about making an app in the style of Tamagotchi, but where you do the habits you want to learn to 'feed' the Tamagotchi.

You think most companies are comparable to Google, one of the worlds most profitable companies? The large large majority of jobs aren't mostly doing nothing and almost no businesses do what you are describing and survive long-term.

They are designed to be addictive yes, but that doesn't make the user non-complicit. It's easy to stop using these products, especially if you have other interests in your life.

They are unreliable and unpredictable for the scales considered in the energy market.

As would I!

Could you have paper cards that have a barcode or qr code that are "activated" when placed into the console and then represented by your 2-3 E-Ink cards? Then the paper cards could be boosters/environment effects and all/some E-Ink cards are affected by them.

Reminder: solid radioactive waste is many times more safe than pumping waste into the air we all breathe. Fossil fuels kill many people per year by their waste and radioactive waste is an easy to solve problem comparatively speaking. Additionally some SMRs are designed to be thrown out wholesale because they are already the container for the nuclear waste. Finally, radioactive waste can be used as a power source.

I recommend looking into base vs peak loading for the energy grid. Nuclear is good as base load power, batteries are good for peak loading and renewables are good for charging batteries.

Grow up, these climate changes will happen, the companies can make the appropriate changes now (early), or they can hold off and be forced to comply or die by governments.

If the company kills people in the process of generating as much profit as possible, it should be stopped. You are saying it should be stopped by the 'rules' which clearly means that governments should be forcing rules that focus on the ESG objectives? That seems like a dangerous path to walk. Any intelligent business manager knows that it is better to act early and in ways you choose than to be forced down a road you don't want later.

You can't see any downside of double blind?

There are many systems we use which provide anonymity, and they always result in some form of abuse. Such as phone numbers (scam calls), Internet (cyber harassment, scams, viruses), cryptocurrency (all the scams). Any system where humans can gain advantages from abusing anonymity they do so.

I'm not an academic so maybe there are already safe guards, but from my understanding people already cut any research into as many small papers as they can. Truly double blind peer review would likely encourage this. Maybe it would also further encourage people to steal research or peer review outside of their expertise.

The benefits may outweigh the negatives, but I'm sure people will find a way to abuse it too, consciously or not.

How is this not acceptable? The person cheated, chess.com said they would keep it confidential, circumstances changed. They didn't swear on their mother's graves.

He specifically said "I never cheated in paid-tournament games" and "I never cheated whilst streaming". Chess.com presents pretty clear evidence that's untrue.

Good design skills have zero correlation with good data analysis skills.