There are definitely other win conditions, but it's still winner-takes-all. So say if an ally is really strong scientifically or culturally it inevitably becomes in your interest to destroy them.

One limitation that games like Civ suffer from is that diplomacy is ultimately pretty shallow because there can only be one winner, so even when you're building alliances or trading relationships it is generally to gain some temporary benefit until you are in a position to defeat your partner later on (whether militarily, scientifically, etc).

What I would love to see is a multiplayer game like Civ but where each player has independent win conditions (so that a game could have multiple winners, or no winners). The condition could even just be to attain a certain level of happiness or wealth. And if you achieve that then you win even if other nations are bigger or stronger, and conversely if you don't achieve it you lose even if you are the last nation standing. So decisions to go to war, or focus on technological development, or build alliances or trading relationships, etc, are driven by the wants and needs of your own people and not just a need to dominate others.

I haven't played ESO but I can tell you the standard of writing in the other ES games is, IMO, very high. Morrowind is my all time favourite, the lore in that game is fantastic.

Lawyer here, but a lot of my interests are tech-adjacent.

Other people have covered the main reasons, which are time and expense. I will just add:

• Lawsuits are public, and a lot of dirty laundry can get aired. They have the potential to be embarrassing for both sides.

• They are also stressful, particularly if you are cross-examined which must be an awful experience.

• Finally, they are risky: even if you think you have a very solid case, there is always a significant chance that the judge will rule against you on the day.

Basically litigation is a bad experience, whether you are plaintiff or defendant, corporate or individual, right or wrong. So both parties have a strong incentive to settle.

UI and pricing aside (I don't have much direct experience of either on GitLab), GitHub is, AFAIK, by far the most popular and therefore it's easier to get your project discovered and get other developers to contribute.

I do kind of think that by centralising so much stuff on a website owned by Microsoft we are running the risk of another Reddit-like situation where GitHub turns sharply anti-user in an attempt to monetise in the future. But for the moment, the network effects are real and significant.

The United States abandoned the gold standard. I am guessing the point of this website is to suggest that was a bad thing. There is a lot of debate around the gold standard and most "mainstream" economists have no love for it, so I'm not saying the website is right or wrong, just that that's what it's about.

This looks promising, thanks!

Vaultwarden is not compiled from Bitwarden's code, it's a separate project and codebase but designed to be compatible with Bitwarden's API.

Bitwarden is open source and you can self-host it but IIRC it's a bit more complex and resource-hungry than Vaultwarden.