BananaTrifleViolin

I loved CS1 and have had CS2 since launch. I just can’t get into CS2 - it’s just not fun.

A large part of that is Paradox Mods in CS2. When CS1 launched from day one you could go onto the steam workshop and download player made models - houses, offices, train stations, roads etc. It grew rapidly and continuously, and it meant every city you made you could customise and change. The game was constantly refreshing and fun, and you could make whatever you wanted.

For CS2, 2 years on and you still can’t add custom assets to the game. Paradox/CO have released themed region based asset packs that they have made and the mods are there, but the player made assets remain largely missing. And I suspect the reason is Paradox Mods and the upcoming console version - the PC version seems to have been held back from being good so Paradox can get it’s console launch. There seems to be a fundamental lack of understanding that the player made content was what made CS1 so great. I suspect CO get that, while Paradox only cares about DLC.

Wow this is terrible news. Basically Paradox owns the IP to Cities Skylines and Colossal Order seemingly want out.

I’d say a large reason CS2 has been such a mess is because it was rushed out, the paradox mod system is just not fit for purpose and there remains a ridiculous focus on getting the console version released + move on to DLCs rather than fixing the main game. I’d put most of the blame on Paradox’s shoulders to be honest.

It’ll be interesting to see what CO does next. CS1 was a great game, CS2 could have been a great game. Will they do another city sim or more onto something else? Seems a shame if they move on as they have grown so much expertise in the genre. I’m hoping they’re cutting free to do a game with their own vision, which was how CS1 came to be.

Yes; it makes no sense to have multiple communities when the Steam Machine and Steam Frame are so similar to the Steam Deck. It may be that in the future it makes sense to split out topics if their isn’t overlap, but I’d say the community isn’t flooded with content and there is a lot of overlap between these topics that will benefit everyone.

It’s not about the item whatever it is, it’s about your reaction to it. This was something your spouse got you to show you that they love you; they bought something they thought you would want and need because they see you using this item all the time. It doesn’t matter that they know you like using old things - for them the thing they got you is an expression of their love for you, and your reaction (lets return it, I don’t want it) is like rejecting their love and is insulting.

I don’t know how you said it to your spouse but the way you’ve described it here your reaction sounds like it was entirely factual and emotionless. It may not be what you’re saying but how you said it that is the issue. Did you acknowledge how kind and thoughtful the gift was? Did you acknowledge what it means to get a nice gift from your spouse before saying that actually it’s not something you’d use?

Instead of seeing it as a tit-for-tat exchange and the same as you gifting t-shirts, you need to understand that this was a personal gift from your spouse. You also need to acknowledge you’re difficult to get gifts for because you like old things. You’re not the bad guy for wanting to return the item, you’re likely the bad guy for how you’ve gone about it and hurting your spouses feelings in the process. It may be that you’re not an emotional person or have difficulty reading other people including your spouse - that’s fine but you may need to acknowledge that you’ve hurt their feelings even if you didn’t realise or mean to, and apologise - that may help a lot. It would also be helpful to tell them how your mother-in-laws gift has sentimental value and you didn’t want to replace it. It may still be that you end up returning the item - but it’s far less important that your relationship with your spouse.

The a specious quote. That implies that all gain can only be at a cost for someone else. Instead of the conservation of mass, we’re talking the conservation of misery. It’s nonsense.

This is certainly a part of the problem. The other side of the coin is “why bother when it’s going to be streaming”. It’s a perfect storm of a terrible experience in cinemas and easy access to streaming in the comfort of your own home. At home I have a perfect view on my big screen TV, can control the lighting, the temperature, the food, and the audience. Cinemas feel like they’re in a death spiral - they make less money so they pump in even more ads and increase fees making the experience worse, which puts off even more punters, so they make even less money.

Hollywood is largely to blame as the article mentions briefly - the 90 day exclusive window for cinemas to show films created an incentive for people to go out and see them, made the cinemas and the studios lots of money, and made movies “special” - they were an event like going to the theatre or going out for dinner. Now going to the cinema feels more like an event such as catching dysentery.

Since the pandemic, the studios have devalued their own product. If you want to see a movie, you just have to wait a couple of weeks and it’ll be available to rent to stream from home. It costs less to rent a movie than go out to the cinema with a much better experience, and Hollywood gets a smaller cut of that. But lots of people don’t even bother with that - for the vast majority of movies you might as well wait until it ends up on a streaming service like Netflix, where Hollywood makes even less.

If Hollywood wants to save itself, it should listen to the cinema chains and extend the exclusive period back to 45 days (or even 90). If you want your product to be premium, it needs to be a premium experience.

There are 9.8m people in London. If everyone was pouring the dregs of their coffee into the surface water drainage it’d be an environmental mess.

Contaminated fluids including dregs of coffee belong in the sewage system, not the surface water drainage system. This is literally the same as pouring coffee into a river or a lake - that’s where the surface water system is designed to run to directly, untreated. In London, that’s the Thames receiving that directly.

I agree pouring coffee into a bin was bad advice, but pouring coffee into the gutters is also wrong. She should have taken it with her and poured it down a sink or toilet.

There are two drainage systems under the roads. One is the clean surface water drainage which is designed to take rain water quickly and freely to nearby rivers and water courses - that is where she poured her waste water. The sewage system is separate and is for foul water - that is what sinks, toilets etc drain into - and should drain to sewage treatment plants to be cleaned.

The gutters on the sides of the side of streets do not connect with the sewers, so people should not be pouring contaminated water down them. It’s basically the same as just pouring coffee directly into the river or a lake.

That is not correct - the surface drainage system should be regarded as separate from the sewage system, even though both run under the roads. There is the surface water system and the foul water system. It’s true that in some places surface drainage may go into the sewage system but that is the exception rather than the rule. Surface drainage is usually designed to move as rapidly as possible into nearby fresh water to prevent flooding.

Surface drainage water is allowed to drain freely into water courses, rivers and lakes, completely untreated. The sewage system is for contaminated water (from toilets and sinks etc) and is designed to go to treatments plants where it SHOULD be treated. It is true that that treatment is not happening, and when there are storms the sewage system can be overrun with water companies currently getting away with dumping contaminated sewage into the rivers which is a scandal.

I disagree; the whole purpose of the enforcement officers is to enforce the environment act. This thread alone shows why - it seems few people are aware there are 2 totally separate water drainage systems under the roads - the clean one for rainwater drainage, and the dirty one for sewage.

People seem to think if you pour something down a rain by the side of the street it will reach the sewers - it will not; it will run with other surface water untreated into the water courses, rivers or lakes. The sewers are totally separate and drain to treatment plants where the water should be treated before being released into the water system.

Unfortunately the article skirts over that whole element of the story. Its making this woman seem like she’s a victim instead of educating herself and others.

It’s irresponsible; the rain gutters are for clean surface water wash off and drain freely into water courses, rivers, lakes etc untreated; they’re totally separate from the sewers even though both systems run under the roads. Organic liquids should be disposed off via the sewage system - so down a toilet or a sink - where the water should be treated before being released back into the water table.

If everyone were disposing of contaminated water in the surface drainage system we’d be in big trouble.

Yes, it is contaminated water and should not be poured into the surface drainage system. It doesn’t connect to the sewers, it is separate and drains freely into rivers, lakes etc.

Yeah that advice was bad from the council. Dirty water goes in a toilet or a sink so it reaches the sewage system where it is supposed to be treated. Only clean water such as rain water goes in the surface water drainage system - it drains freely into the water table untreated. They are 2 totally separate systems and there seems to be shocking ignorance about their existence and what a gutter on the road is. People seem to think it drains into the sewers.

That is incorrect - there are 2 water drainage systems in the UK. Surface water / rain goes into the surface system and that flows freely into the water table untreated (rivers, lakes etc). It is not designed for dirty water.

The sewage system is totally separate - that is for contaminated water (toilets, sinks) and that goes to sewage treatment plants. It should be treated before it is released into the freshwater system.

So yes, it IS polluting the fresh water by putting things into the rain drainage system.

This story is really poor and badly reported, as it doesn’t explain WHY the Environmental Protection Act 1990 has these fines in place and why what this women did was wrong. Instead it’s a clickbait story that implies the woman is a victim.

In the UK (and like many places) there are 2 systems of water drainage in urban areas - the surface water drainage (which is for rainwater) and the sewage system (which is dirty and drains toilets, home sinks, etc).

The surface water drainage runs eventually into fresh water such as lakes, rivers, and the sea, untreated. So if you pour coffee down a rain drain, it is contaminating the fresh water. It may seem ridiculous to fine someone for the dregs of one coffee, but if everyone were putting waste water in the rainwater drains / gutters it would have a detrimental impact on the ecosystem. It’s already a huge problem as people DO put contaminated water into these drains, probably due to widespread ignorance.

The sewage system is for contaminated waste; that water is collected and treated and either reused for drinking water or then released back into the fresh water system. Finish your coffee OR take it with you to a place where you can dispose of it into the sewage system.

She needs to pay her fine, educate herself and understand she is not a victim here. She did something wrong.