I’m asking this from a place of genuine ignorance: how does the evenness of the heat distribution matter when microwaving a pure liquid? I’m familiar with the microwave’s uneven heating qualities. I’m sure we’ve all bit into food that is scalding hot on the surface and still lukewarm at best in its interior. However, I’ve always presumed that is a product of microwaving a heterogenous, predominantly solid substance.

So, sure, the microwave applies heat unevenly to the water. But wouldn’t the tiny little bits of water which get “over” heated simply diffuse their excess thermal energy into the rest of the homogenous volume in very short order? Furthermore,wouldn’t an uneven heat distribution in a mug of water simply lead to convection currents flowing from hot to cold, therefore promoting a relatively even distribution?

First, I think it would be to your benefit to investigate whether this project of yours was even interesting to your grandparents. Youve shared your interpretation of the situation (they are practically homebound and may be missing out on some experience with the wider world), and it seems reasonable, but it does not account for their perspective. They may not be missing anything about the wider world. Or, maybe they are missing some aspect of it, but don’t view “digital tourism” as a valid substitute. Most likely though, they’re just pleased their grandchild is visiting and want to focus on that, rather than the TV or computer.

As an illustrative example, imagine an introvert and extrovert coworkers. The extrovert discovers the introvert has no weekend plans, and assumes that they must be lonely or sad. They, with the noblest of intentions, try to cajole their colleague into going out on Friday night. The introvert, who has been looking forward to finally being able to settle into their latest novel, is upset that the extrovert is projecting a void onto their lives that they don’t see as a void at all.

I’m not saying that that is what’s occurring here, and obviously you know your grandparents better than strangers on the internet, but I do think it’s a possibility that should be investigated before you commit to any plan.

If your question encompasses the broader theme park tycoon genre, and you chafe against some of RCT’s legacy design elements, you might try Parkitecht or Planet Coaster. PC2 just released, though the reviews seem comparatively tepid to the OG, so buyer beware.

Not much to say about the wider conversation here, but I just want to chime in to support your position. I read that article you posted, and I was kinda chuckling to myself at the author, who seems to be at least a casual fan of deckbuilder type games, arguing that the devs are wrong, and that the cards were not a barrier to entry. Meanwhile, I’m sitting over here, looking at the copy I have in my steam library which has never been touched, specifically because I heard it was a deckbuilder and immediately lost all interest. This despite the otherwise fairly positive reception the game got, and the hundreds of hours I’ve spent in Firaxis style tactical strategy games.

Sometimes I wish I knew why I have such a mental block about deckbuilding. I think the layers of strategy become too abstract for me to visualize what I’m trying to pull off, and it feels artificial in a way that rubs me the wrong way. Even if a 3 turn cool down on an ability is no less artificial, it doesn’t irk me in the same way.

And for the record, I didn’t buy the game just to never play it, its a family library copy! I’m not that wasteful.

Not an option for most, I’d wager. Federal employees are free to unionize, however it is a felony crime for a federal employee to strike against the government. Furthermore, it’s a felony to even assert that this is right you have, or to join an organization which asserts that right. The government’s HR department, the Office of Personnel Management, is able to bar any person who violates these provisions from federal employment for life.

Laws more or less to this effect have been on the books since the 40s and 50s, but the issue came to a head in the early 80s when thousands of air traffic controllers went on strike against the FAA after contract negotiations fell through. Reagan ordered the controllers back to work, and, when they refused, summarily fired them. Where they couldn’t be replaced be scabs, he activated the military to fill in, citing national security. According to the last article I read, of the 13,000 striking employees, 11,000 were fired and barred from future employment (though I think Clinton rolled some of that back in the 90s).

Considering it’s clear that the GOP benefits from government dysfunction, and does everything they can to erode public faith in institutions, striking postal workers would be a gift served on a silver platter for them. Trump will giddily fire every last one of the strikers, be praised for being a big strong man who doesn’t negotiate with plebs, and the postal service will be de facto shutter, even if it still exists in as diminished a form as they can get away with while still satisfying whatever requirements there are to have such an institution.

Obviously striking always carries risk, but asking someone to almost certainly throw away their livelihoods for a course of action that will likely only accelerate Trump et al.'s goals is unreasonable.