Skasi

I agree. They very likely mean "You could / must / must not peel a banana"

Interesting to note: Brits still have a severe sewage problem (Wikipedia: Sewage discharge in the United Kingdom). Even to this day they're often releasing untreated sewage into nature.

It doesn't seem like trolling to me. Posts do not seem offensive and don't seem to break any of the rules. It seems to be a strong opinion, perhaps misinformed or naive or confusing. But not flat out trolling.

its probably no use to talk with you

I think this thought is a dangerous one. It's a sort of trap that people fall into. It's very alluring and easy to say that. Yet I suggest people stay vigilant and brave and avoid it. Keep in mind it's difficult for people to let go of their opinions, don't resent them for it and try to understand their point of view, maybe there's something in it for you to learn.

collations that ignore the first choice are not legitimate

Why so? Why do you assume that one party should arbitrarily be given more rights/power than others? Where does this idea come from?

Imagine an even more extreme example. Assume the winning party had 5% of the votes and most other parties had around 4-5% of the votes. Then assume that the winning party is unable to convince any other parties to enter into a coalition with them. Should all other parties not be allowed to make a coalition to represent 95% of the voters? Should the "winning" party be allowed to block this? Why should such deadlocks be allowed? What is the argument behind this?

This assumes the opposing party represents every other vote cast, as well that peoples votes are entirely exclusive.

Keep in mind that literally every other party announced beforehand that they would NOT enter into a coalition with this particular party under its leadership. That means any people who voted for another party must've accepted this.

This comment confuses me. So in your opinion, in a proper good non-failing democracy should getting less than 29% of the votes mean you get to rule over everybody and make decisions without anybody interferring? So then in other words, <29% of the population should get to decide who rules alone over 100% of the population? That sounds like it'd be a very counter-productive system.

Magic Carpet and Startopia

Not a clone, but imo still very worth mentioning: Mindustry is an automation game with a heavy focus on factory building and a sort of tower defense aspect. The community is very active and there seems to be a lot of variety on multiplayer as well.

I'd add not using Amazon Prime, Amazon Web Services and other Amazon services. Not using X, being critical of SpaceX. Also, stop advertising these things, stop telling your friends about them, maybe even stop talking about them altogether. I think for some strange reason sometimes bad press is better than no press.

Does it make sense to blur names when they're still relatively easy to decipher, when the project can be found on github and the top committer links to their Twitter account? 🤔