Damionsipher

Below zero was still an excellent game. I don't think it was as good as the original, mostly due to the stupid snow Fox and must of the on land sections, but it doesn't deserve anywhere near the level of hate it gets. The story was way better and more interesting than the first, and the world design was a great attempt at a different form of world building. I hope they expand on both and we can get an experience that propels the format further. No other game let's me engage and chill out to anywhere near the same level.

I guess by "not doing business with the city" they will be removing any connection to the sewer system and roads...

Clerks is definitely more iconic, but it feels like the transition from the 80s into the 90s. I put my vote with Mallrats, which is 90s through and thorough - hell, there's even a 90210 reference delivered directly to Shannen Doherty.

And if they have money they might spend it on things like fast food, that generates a need for more workers. Who'd have thought?!

Definitely not saying it works pervasively, lots of jurisdictions work as plutocracies and have vacated any sense of public good. That some jurisdictions suck doesn't nullify the possibilities of cooperation and public good being the foundations of good governance.

Governance, government and states are all different and nebulous within themselves. You can achieve governance models that better resist the consolidation of power while still operating towards the goal of the collective good. That alone does not denote nationalization, which is a particular form of statehood (often referred to as a sovereign state). Watershed governance is managed across existing levels of international, regional and local governing bodies, often with a high level of success to best ensure sufficient water is available for the communities within.

Certainly Lenin and good compatriots has the best of intentions with their vanguard approach to intention. But, as you noted, that concentration of power ultimately corrupted in the hands of a nefarious few. These ideas were not Lenin's alone and even Marx promoted the idea of a Vanguard long before the Bolshevik revolution, which Bakunin (an early anarchist) was opposed due to the likelihood of the vanguard becoming entrenched within that power. That concentration of power by a class of elite was the mistake. To argue there wasn't time to educate the masses is to ignore the fallout of that approach. These are important lessons to remember, even should the future approach to revolution be focused on the establishment of worker co-ops. Positions of power and power between cooperatives are likely to remain and we will need systems of control to mediate these types of emergent hierarchies.

Simple if you understand the theory and history. The main difference between Communists and anarchists is the involvement of the state.

Yes, but let's try to achieve that without state ownership of the means.

We're you dating a 30 year old at 20?

I like to say that once you hit 30 you're old, then every 10 years thereafter you get another "really" in front of it. So at 40 you're really old, 50 it's really really old, 60 is really really old, etc. I find it amusing when people argue, to which my retort is that when any of us were ~20 we thought 30 was old, and that hasn't changed in the world...

I think that's at the University of Waterloo - they would routinely close entrances due to aggressive geese.