Devial

Reminds of the old pile of gold (empty) meme

I mean that is kinda exactly what the developers want to provoke with timed dialogue choices. Timed dialogue choices are a game design mechanic to try and get a player to answer on instinct/gut feeling, rather than over analysing and trying to optimise the dialogue.

You not getting to think about it long is very much the intended effect, and allowing a pause would entirely defeat it.

There are of course definite accessibility concerns that should be considered and worked around, such as people with dyslexia who may not be able to properly parse the dialogue options before the timer runs out, but as a game mechanic I think forcing the player to pick on instinct definitely has merit. It helps make the game more immersive, because it puts you under the same pressure to react as your character is in the story right now, and it can lead to more interesting and ultimately enjoyable games by forcing players to potentially make a mistake, and having to find out a way to deal with the fallout.

Games that don't allow you to pause and skip cutscenes.

I don't want to have to miss half of the cutscenes just because someone interrupted me or the phone rang or something half way through. Alternatively, when I'm on my 23rd replay of a game, I do not want to have to sit through every cutscenes I already know by heart.

Oh, and modern games that allow manual saving at any time, not having any kind of regular auto save (looking at you here BG3).

If you're fine from a gameplay pov with having the player save whenever, then there's really no good reason whatsoever to not have one or two auto save slots that get saved every 10-20 minutes or so, at least as an option in the menu. ESPECIALLY in open world games (like BG3...) where you can easily go literal hours at a time without hitting a checkpoint save. And yes, I am still salty over learning about BG3's lack of regular auto save when I lost like 2.5 hours of progress on my first run.

It's possible to that of course, but I doubt it's worth it. It also couldn't be adapted as is, because fuses in each plug are always required t for UK plugs, they aren't for EU plugs. And if you have to adapt a narrow EU plug to hold a replacable fuse would eat into size savings, require adapting the standard and require entirely new production lines for the modified plugs, so almost certainly simply not worth it.

Spamming this on inappropriate communities is just going to make me NOT watch your videos out of spite, if nothing else.

No, because the rest of the world isn't America.

Those ring circuits WERE up to UK standard, and perfectly safe when they were constructed, and nowadays are either still covered by the standard, or grandfathered in, meaning at minimum in existing buildings, they still in fact are up to UK standard.

The reason other counties don't use ring circuits isn't because they're less safe or inherently worse in any way, which the term "substandard" clearly implies. It's because they're less convenient. It's easier and more convenient to make and use, and easier in terms of individual steps, to make safe seperate fused circuits instead of a ring circuit.

The reason the UK used ring circuits was because they use much less copper conduit, and given the massive ~~copper~~ everything shortage in the UK during and after WWII, the convenience of modern circuits simply wasn't worth it.

No it isn't. It's debatable if the safety features are still necessary with modern wiring and electric code imporovments, but the features are objectively there, and they objectively make the plugs safer.

And the design of these features wasn't because of "substandard" wiring. It is because the UK used to use ring circuits in old houses, which are unsuitable to be protected by central breaker boards with breakers for each room, necessitating fuses in the plugs. That doesn't make the system any less safe. As long as a fuse is present, and the circuits are adequately sized, where precisely on the circuit a fuse is located is irrelevant.

Also, the fuse inside the plug provides an utterly unique advantage that no other country has: The fuse can be used to protect the external wire from over current. Centralised fuses are exclusively designed to prevent over current on the main, internal circuit, they don't give a crap what happens on the other side of an outlet. A central fuse protecting a 16A circuit will do nothing to stop you from pulling 15Amps through a 3 amp cable. A fuse inside the plug, appropriately sized for those 3 Amps, will in fact protect the cable itself. This is particularly useful for extension cords. Other countries without fused plugs need to either just flat out mandate ALL extension and multiplug cords be capable of safely handling the maximum current of a household circuit (e.g. Germany) OR just ignore that rather major safety hazard entirely and just kinda hope that nothing bad happens (e.g. USA) (if you've ever wondered, that's specifically why chaining extension cords together in the US is considered dangerous)

Jup, that's a really good feature. You can get aftermarket child shutters for EU style plugs as well, but they require you to twist the plug before inserting, making them kinda inconvenient, and they have to be specifically installed by parents. Though I don't think that's the worst thing in the world. After all, we don't make any of our other products or home designs toddler safe by default. It's generally regarded as the parents responsibility to ensure their home is child proof before they get a child.

But the UK version of just having it in every outlet as a hidden feature that you wouldn't even notice if you don't know it's there is definitely the best approach.

(Though it does make low form factor UK plugs almost impossible, because every plug must have a ground prong, even if there's no actual safety need to have one)

A GFCI is the same thing as an RCD, they're just different terms. They both have the same function: detecting leakage current, and isolating the electrical connection as soon as it does.

They are referencing the lack of isolation on the prongs for US plugs. If a US plug isn't fully inserted, it's possible for both of the two prongs to form electrical connections with the outlet, whilst not yet being fully inserted.

This means a small part of the prongs which are now at 110V potential to each other is exposed, and could potentially be touched by a child, or cause a short circuit if an object gets into the gap.

So yeah, the electrical code in the US for household plugs is just straight unsafe.

You can see the way to do it properly in this post: Notice how the two L+N prongs only have exposed metal at the very tip, this, if they're inserted deep enough to create contact, it's not possible for any exposed metal to still protrude from the outlet.

Having switched outlets wouldn't make US plugs any safer, at least not in any meaningful way.

The individual switches on UK outlets don't really add significantly to safety, they're mostly just a convenience feature, because for an electrical plug/outlet to even be considered safe in the first place, it has to be always safe, whether it's powered or not. You can't rely on people switching off unused outlets instead of doing actual safety design.

The main factors that make US plugs less safe than UK ones is the potential for exposed metal contacts with a closed connection to the outlet, the lack of internal fuse and the lack of polarisation, and, particularly in combination with the first point, the comparatively weak grip strength and protruding design that make it easy for a plug to become (partially) unplugged by accident.

Best plug+receptor design in the world for electrical safety.

Worst plug design in the world for bottom of foot safety.