I have people close to me with actual diagnosed schizoid personality disorder, this disorder is nothing like this person describes it, to the point of being offensive. No wonder why the actual professionals they are talking to so outright dismiss them.
Essentially super().__init__() will resolve to a statically unknowable class at run-time because super() refers to the next class in the MRO. Knowing what class you will call is essentially unknowable as soon as you accept that either your provider class hierarchy may change or you have consumers you do not control. And probably even worse, you aren't even guaranteed that the class calling your constructor will be one of your subclasses.
Which is why for example super().__init__() is pretty much mandatory to have as soon as you expect that your class will be inherited from. That applies even if your class inherits only from object, which has an __init__() that is guaranteed to be a nop. Because you may not even be calling object.__init__() but rather some sibling.
So the easiest way to solve this is: Declare everything you need as keyword argument, but then only give **kwargs in your function signature to allow your __init__() to handle any set of arguments your children or siblings may throw at you. Then remove all of "your" arguments via kwargs.pop('argname') before calling super().__init__() in case your parent or uncle does not use this kwargs trick and would complain about unknown arguments. Only then pass on the cleaned kwargs to your MRO foster parent.
So while using **kwargs seems kind of lazy, there is good arguments, why you cannot completely avoid it in all codebases without major rework to pre-existing class hierarchies.
For the obvious question "Why on earth?" These semantics allow us to resolve diamond dependencies without forcing the user to use interfaces or traits or throwing runtime errors as soon as something does not resolve cleanly (which would all not fit well into the Python typing philosophy.)
Though, I wonder whether, had I played past a certain point where my evidence book would have had enough "critical mass" for things to fall into place more readily, it would have been more fun. Not sure it solves the pacing issue, though.
I should probably get back to it and find out.
Just enjoy the first part cinematically. Explore the ship and unlock the scenes. Absorb the atmosphere from the scenes, and enjoy the music. Try to figure out the disjointed narrative, and don't focus on your puzzle book. (One of the flaws is that the forced waiting sequence should IMO lock you out of accessing the puzzle book completely. I often forgot, and got annoyed because I could not enter the cause of death before the page got unlocked after the scene...) You will not be able to solve a lot in the first pass anyways. The game throws you some freebies, yes, but that's just to let you get used to handling the book.
For context, once I had unlocked all scenes, I had not even one quarter of the book solved, and despite what I recommend in the first paragraphs, it was not for lack of trying. This is when you notice that you have everything you need, and a sort of panic sets in. You realize that it will not get easier than this. This intrigued me a lot, and this was when the real puzzle game starts. Now you revisit all the scenes analyzing every nook and cranny of the dioramas like some nautical Sherlock Holmes. But it's never stupid "hunt the pixel" like one would assume from that description, no. I have never seen the attention for detail in any game before, and the dev really thought of everything.
If you ever find yourself thinking "Oh wow, I can deduce something here from the position of that piece of scenery, but there is no way this was intended", then the answer is always "Oh yes, it totally was". Then you enter the suspicion into the book, and suddenly the game validates you by copying your notes into print with that cheerful music jingle. After a while the screen turning black and the first notes starting will give you a dopamine rush already.
The game captures perfectly what for example escape rooms or detective stories are about. The only real downside of the game is that the replay value is 0 by its very concept. I envy you for still being able to play it blind.
It’s usually meine Damen und Herren, as it is in English (Ladies and Gentlemen).
In fact the only reference I can find to it being the other way round is in the first speech given by a woman in the German parliament in 1919.
I can say from my own experience at least at my university, that "Altherrenhumor" ("old gentleman humor") like this is still very common in German engineering lectures even today, or at least well into the 2010s.
I would even call such a re-ordering of the genders in the greeting very tame. If you are a woman, you better come to your lectures on time. If you enter the hall half a minute late, the entire hall would whistle at you and cat-call you. Sometimes with support of the lecturer, who would consider it appropriate hazing for "disturbing" the lecture by being late.
At least there started to be at least some sort of push-back by the administration during the years in which I studied, and the really bad stuff only seemed to happen in classes dominated by the mechanical engineers.
I come from a country that is generally considered very open-minded about nudity, and having a communal shower with your colleagues after your shift (gender-separated, mind you) is considered absolutely normal in jobs that get you dirty.
And even if you are a prude, I really wonder why no-one has considered sharing a shower or sponge-bath with a colleague or two in swim-shorts. It's more unhygienic than showering naked, yes, but I would still consider this miles better than taking no shower at all for days at a time.
Or maybe the showers described are indeed communal, and they just noticed that squeezing two people below one spout is just not a efficient way to shower and does not actually save that much water...
In the fourth task "Add the angles BAC and EDF on the given line GH", I drew the circles DF and EF in, then connected E and F with a line segment, and it told me that I solved the problem without touching the points GH at all...
Edit: In fact, simply drawing the line from E to F is already enough.
Edit 2: Similar when doing the "Perpendicular to line in a point not on a line": Drawing any perpendicular is enough, even if it is not going through that point.
So I don't get how Germany would need to burn coal/gas for the french. If I look here, only 2% are imported from Germany https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/FR?utm_source=electrici...
The real problem is going to be this winter, where EDF needs to repair its nuclear reactors before the start of winter, in order to provide electricity for France and Germany. And that situation is pretty much due to the lack of vision of Germany and Merkel.
It explains why currently, even though gas is so prohibitively expensive, we still run gas powered plants at the moment, and also why even with relatively low transmission capacity between countries there is still big impact on energy prices.
The tl;dr is: Energy prices are determined by taking the most expensive auction price that is required to cover the load at any given moment. Everyone who offered a cheaper rate may sell the energy, but receives the highest price that was accepted. This means that prices are highly non-linear and susceptible to supply shocks. Even though the changes from import to export with respect to France are small, a rather small reduction in cheap nuclear power immediately makes it a lot more profitable to produce energy, also making coal and gas viable again.
Also note that this model explains the cheap price of nuclear and solar: You "only" need to ROI your initial capital eventually to turn a profit. When push comes to shove you would rather sell at any price above 0 (or at least a very low bottom) rather than turning off your plant and getting no income at all. You cannot do that when you still have significant operational expenses for fuel (coal, gas, stored water).
On electricitymap you can see this behaviour in action as well. Even with something like 50% solar production, prices remain high, when suddenly, the prices collapse below zero after a certain threshold was reached. Also note that in these cases, the prices in France and Germany decouple. Customers on the German energy exchange might get paid to use energy while in France spot price still is upward of 10-20 ct/kWh.
Also:
> Under European market law, you are obliged to buy renewable energy if it is available.
Do you have a source for that? I think that guarantee only applies to Germany. And then it only says that the suppliers always get paid for the energy they could produce, wind and solar can and will still get turned off physically.
And from what I have written above it pretty much follows that renewables will always be bought if possible, because they have no fuel costs and letting them run is during positive prices always more profitable than shutting them off. Note though that many renewables are not even sold on the energy exchange and rather influence the market indirectly as most energy utilities have fixed delivery contracts with the producers and only buy/sell the excess on the spot market.
Migrating away from (black) coal (used mostly in the steel industry) has caused big issues in the Ruhr area ("Strukturwandel", structural shift, meaning migration of significant parts of the workforce from coal to other sectors) in the past, which also means that the population is very wary of phasing out lignite as well. Pretty much everyone knows somebody who lost their job in a mine. Some cities like Gelsenkirchen are still structurally weak, like a lite version of Detroit. This means that politicians mow give expensive political gifts to the coal industry to provide retraining opportunities or early pensions, just so they can claim that they do not "forget" the workers this time.
While in fact, there is maybe 30k people or so in all of Germany employed by coal and its dependent industries. And nobody cares that the wind and solar industry lost 100k or so workers over the last decade due to avoidable regulatory issues and the resulting low project volume.
Anyways, you should not underestimate the amount of respect the coal workers always had in the Ruhr area. Digging coal in a below-ground mine is still the essential definition of "honest work" and sacrifice here. It's probably somewhat comparable to how military service is treated in the US, including the occasional "thank you for your service" and all. There are shrines dedicated to St. Barbara, the patron saint of mining, sprinkled everywhere, because people regularily prayed for their husbands, fathers, brothers, sons and friends to come home safely each day. Children learn the Steigerlied in school and sing it before football games. It's even worse than a lobby, the population mostly supports special treatment for the coal workers, as the mining and steel industry is still part of the cultural DNA.
You mention someone with "actual diagnosed" disorder assigned by "actual professionals".
It seems like you think the daughter's behavior should be thought of as more characteristic of behavior of the female sex and less that of a woman expressing a diagnosed disorder. Can you clarify your thoughts?
I read the article and saw more narcissism and anger than autistic behavior, and I'm not too familiar with how much the "professionals" treat narcissism as a subset of autism.
I explicitly do not want to make a statement about the normality of the described behaviour, as it is impossible to do something like that on a third-person account, even if you were a "professional". And I would like to point out that you are doing the same.
What I criticize indeed is the simplistic view of mental disorders put forward in this article, especially personality disorders. Differential diagnosis is very difficult in psychology as many disorders are disruptions of similar underlying cognitive processes, and comorbidities are common. Their view of schizoid personality disorder is not accurate. For example the part where the author dismissed the psychologist who reminded them that those disorders are only diagnosed in adults. This is what struck me as very odd, which is why I mentioned the age of the daughter. This shows a severe deficiency of knowledge what personality disorders actually are. While there is genetic disposition for developing a PD, they are generally considered to be acquired during childhood and adolescent personality development. In addition, the author seems to get confused by the similarity in name of schizoid PD and schizophrenia (confusingly even though they seem to be aware that the illnesses are different) by assuming a prospensity to having a psychotic world-view.
An outdated view considered it actually to be impossible to get rid of a manifested PD in adulthood, while modern views fortunately see more neuroplasticity in adults. Diagnosing a PD in early adolescence does not make sense, rather one would identify stressors in the environment nurturing dysfunctional patterns and try to resolve those before the behavioural patterns are embedded too deeply.
But it is difficult to tell what the author actually means, as they are somewhat contradictory in their thoughts and seem generally ill-informed about basics.