Honestly I’m glad he ended up not going with the unarmed build. This game has so many cool weapons and unarmed and melee was always super boring to me in pretty much all these games, especially when you’re just watching it
Fuck yeah my first proper addiction from 25 years ago However if you want to play it yourself than don't do it as jabo did: Kill errythang and disarm every trap in the tutorial and score your first lvl up
Have you ever played Underrail? Mechanically it's very much like Fallout and you can play character archetypes such as: muscle wizard, Solid Snake, mad scientist, tin can w/ a machine gun.
Hey jabo, im not sure if you fixed the music in the game or not, but i constantly have issues with fallout music on gog. I usually have to right click the game in the launcher and "repair game" for it to actually get fixed. My fallout 4 was cutting music before it finished and fall out newvegas got where it didnt play music at all and doing it to both fixed them. Im still having issues with fallout 3 not even launching though, but i'll take what i can get.
Jabo, I can't wait for the Brotherhood of Steel playthrough it's gonna be awesome! But there's a lot of copyrite music in the game so try not to get claimed.
This is the game that motivated me to learn English. Easily the worst tutorial in the history of videogames. Been since my first videogame experienced up to this point... Sounds OK on paper, but still doesn't change how boring it is. Also fun fact that I've found after many playthroughs - you can Pickpocket (sic) shelves arounds dwarf merchant in the NCR city outskirts. Fallout 2 beginning is a easy enough and then there's this... One strat for Metzeger and his goon would be lockpicking the entrance to their HQ and peaking through the windows for easy hits. Early game it's the best option as long as you have decent aim and lots of ammo.
This seems like as good a place as any to dump the shit my brain comes up with (lol, jk, I do have some education to justify what I'm gonna say). I have some formal education in economics (it's been my major for a while now), and I've been personally interested in economics/history/sociology/etc since I was in high school. You brought up AI and productive technologies and touched on an interesting topic: how they might affect the order of things globally. Specifically, the relationship between those who make a living by working - creating value - and those who live off of the value created by others (the 1%). This field of study is called political economy, how the economic order of things affects or even is the basis for the political order. Notable political economists would be Smith, Locke, Ricardo, and Marx, but there have been many others who have made valuable contributions. The first fallacy that most people fall for when predicting the future is assuming that the way things are is the way they always have been or will be. History has actually shown that "human nature" and the order of society is very plastique, actually. But if it changes so much, and not necessarily around a few core features inherent to humanity, then what is it that determines this change? Well, the development of productive technologies, the consciousness people develop through experience under the existing mode of production, and more. If you wanted to get more fundamental about it, you could say everything arises out of a material basis. We can't have an advanced, interconnected, highly productive (not necessarily equitable, just productive) society like we have today, when the only tools we have are spears, bows, etc. Similarly, we can't have a hunter-gatherer society without first abandoning our industrial technologies. Social orders require a material basis, in this case mostly technology/resource availability. With that concept established, let's move on and try to figure out what it might be like to live in a future where technology is entirely self-sufficient, eliminating the need for human labor. To understand this advance and what it would change politically/socially, we have to understand what we have now, economically/politically/socially. What we have now is capitalism. That is, a system predicated on the private, individual ownership of the means of production. Under feudalism, this was expressed as ownership of land, and slave society expressed this as ownership of slaves. The tools of production, part of the overall means of production, have advanced to the point where no one person can really generate a product all on their own. 100 people working for 1 hour might make a car, but one person performing their job in a car factory will not make a car, no matter how much time they're given. This means, for the most part, production has been socialized. That is, it's necessarily a collective process. A car has the labor of hundreds or thousands of people put into it, including the slave miners in the Congo, the repressed producers in Latin America, and maybe the place where it is finally assembled (allowing them to claim it was "made in America" or something). Diving into how global inequality came to be, like how those who export the most are the poorest countries and those who import the most tend to be the wealthiest, would take a long time. I recommend The Wealth of Some Nations by Zak Cope if you want some technical details. The political order that currently exists initially arose to protect those who owned these means of production against those who used them to produce value. Wealthier owners even hired gangs and militias to kill or terrorize smaller owners into selling their property, allowing the wealthier owners to consolidate and expand. This early chaos gave rise to powerful owners that needed to coordinate, as the number of people who owned became fewer and the number of people who worked became many (a process very significantly advanced by the industrial revolution). This led to the expansion of the state power, which had previously been kinda small and used to regulate debts/national defense/etc. Private militias like the Pinkertons still existed, but were also frequently aided by a less effective state police. They found that having people from a community police workers who went on strike was less effective than importing people from elsewhere, so you'll often have federal police or militias whose leaders are themselves business owners breaking up strikes. A really interesting example from American history is the Lawrence Textiles Strike in... I think it was 1911. Worth learning about imo. This relationship changed after a number of successful and attempted revolutions led by various socialist and anarchist movements broke out. Conditions were miserable, you'd often find children being maimed and exploited in factories and whatnot, while workers got paid just enough that they would literally starve as soon as they became unable to work, then were easily replaced. These people banded together and threatened to overthrow the government and take away the rights of their bosses to what they collectively produced. This is how the US got the New Deal reforms, actually. The state leaders, prompted by a number of wealthier owners, gave concessions in order to stop a revolution from happening. The building up of social democratic states internationally occurred mostly after WWII, during the cold War. The Soviet Union was the first massively successful worker-run state. It had plenty of issues, but the main thing it did globally was inspire and materially support revolutions worldwide (this is a more complicated topic, but I'm gonna brush over it), and provided to its people universal Healthcare, education, guaranteed jobs, almost full literacy, etc. Suddenly, this example threatened the entire capitalist world, and on top of the cold War, the US and many other countries tried to project themselves as a consumer Utopia with no poverty or struggle. American exceptionalism and whatnot. With the Soviet Union adopting significant policy revisions in the late 50s, and basically adopting capitalism in the late 80s/early 90s and collapsing, this need to compete went away and things started to decline for workers worldwide pretty rapidly. Basically, I'm saying all this to say that a capitalist future where labor is done by technology is not possible. We currently produce more than enough food to feed the entire world, but without scarcity, there is no profit. If everyone had food, food would be near worthless, so food is destroyed to keep profits up. Similarly, a world where everything is produced without labor would be temporarily very profitable for the first companies to implement it, but would render everything produced into something without value. The most likely scenario where capitalism kinda survives is with the implementation of a UBI. Nobody works, everyone is paid some kind of subsistence wage, and then we have to pay for what is produced by machines in abundance. There are lots of problems with this, though. More likely, self-sufficient machines would be outlawed by capitalist states, or permitted only within particular industries. After all, if infinite food could be produced without human labor, then everyone living a privileged life from selling food would likely lose that privilege, because we only need so much food. The good future is socialism. I'm not speaking from a purely moral perspective, here, either. Socialism, or the lower stage of Communism, is where workers own the means of production. Since the majority of society has only their labor to sell, it is in our objective material interests to collectively own the tools we collectively use to produce things we collectively need. When everyone exists as someone who works (excluding children/retired people/disabled people/etc, who would be taken care of) and benefits from their work, individual ownership would cease to exist. Over time, we would culturally transition from owning - in part individually and in part through a democratically organized social ownership - the full value of what you produce to not really having a concept of ownership. Self-sufficient machine production fits rather neatly into this socioeconomic arrangement.
what if Jabo has pincers and lived in the sea and was called Crabo? That would be pretty funny I think.
You're home dude go high
What if I was a Magician and I turned Jabo into a crab and call him Crabo? That would be a magic trick I think
0:06 in the video he's already saying talk tuah
1:23 Thanks for looking out for us sleepy vod watchers Jabo 🙏
Honestly I’m glad he ended up not going with the unarmed build. This game has so many cool weapons and unarmed and melee was always super boring to me in pretty much all these games, especially when you’re just watching it
im drunk rn but i love you jabo. thank you for the amount of effort you put into the content you consistently pump out❤️
Real 💜
I love that it takes two hours to fix the music lol
great vid, makes me want to try the classics
😂
Bless you Jabo for us vod sleepers🙌 gonna watch part 2 for bed when it drops😂
I don't know about other dumpster viewers butci enjoy hearing stream tip notifications when im falling asleep to these vods
Thanks Jabster
Sir jab of the O has bestowed upon us a gift
Indubitably
I honestly love the philosophical talks. Its my minor in college right now.
I remember finding 1 and 2 bundled together at Walmart and not knowing anything about it. Worth every penny and then some.
Fuck yeah my first proper addiction from 25 years ago
However if you want to play it yourself than don't do it as jabo did:
Kill errythang and disarm every trap in the tutorial and score your first lvl up
Yay!!! I love your videos Jabo
Next time you play this jabo, you should do an unarmed/jinxed playthrough. It’s absolutely hilarious
Hooooly, finally a F2 vid! Pog
Proud JFJ (Joints for jabo) member here.
Have you ever played Underrail? Mechanically it's very much like Fallout and you can play character archetypes such as: muscle wizard, Solid Snake, mad scientist, tin can w/ a machine gun.
Jabo thanks for the birthday Fallout Vod
If you just right click you can switch between curser modes and not have to keep clicking on the weapon zone to target.
Fallout 2 really is the game to be existential and nihilistic as fuck in
Hey jabo, im not sure if you fixed the music in the game or not, but i constantly have issues with fallout music on gog. I usually have to right click the game in the launcher and "repair game" for it to actually get fixed. My fallout 4 was cutting music before it finished and fall out newvegas got where it didnt play music at all and doing it to both fixed them. Im still having issues with fallout 3 not even launching though, but i'll take what i can get.
To fix FO3 You could try downloading ToTW (tale of two waste lands)
2:19:37 how did he know??😂😂
Oh yeah time for some jabout
the yoda bit was so good
sooo there is no implant for agility +1 , you should start with 10 . you can still get to 10 using perk. but its sub-optimal , perks are super good .
Jabo, I can't wait for the Brotherhood of Steel playthrough it's gonna be awesome! But there's a lot of copyrite music in the game so try not to get claimed.
Gameplay starts 30:40
Enfin Fallout 2 !
FINALLY
Gameplay starts at 29:00 ish
Hello from Canada 🇨🇦
Yesssss! Just bought this on steam too
This is the game that motivated me to learn English.
Easily the worst tutorial in the history of videogames. Been since my first videogame experienced up to this point... Sounds OK on paper, but still doesn't change how boring it is.
Also fun fact that I've found after many playthroughs - you can Pickpocket (sic) shelves arounds dwarf merchant in the NCR city outskirts. Fallout 2 beginning is a easy enough and then there's this...
One strat for Metzeger and his goon would be lockpicking the entrance to their HQ and peaking through the windows for easy hits. Early game it's the best option as long as you have decent aim and lots of ammo.
what's your native tongue?
I had 2 older brothers one 20 years older than me and one 18 years older than me.
4:12:29 this isn't gonna age well
😂😂
This seems like as good a place as any to dump the shit my brain comes up with (lol, jk, I do have some education to justify what I'm gonna say).
I have some formal education in economics (it's been my major for a while now), and I've been personally interested in economics/history/sociology/etc since I was in high school. You brought up AI and productive technologies and touched on an interesting topic: how they might affect the order of things globally. Specifically, the relationship between those who make a living by working - creating value - and those who live off of the value created by others (the 1%). This field of study is called political economy, how the economic order of things affects or even is the basis for the political order.
Notable political economists would be Smith, Locke, Ricardo, and Marx, but there have been many others who have made valuable contributions.
The first fallacy that most people fall for when predicting the future is assuming that the way things are is the way they always have been or will be. History has actually shown that "human nature" and the order of society is very plastique, actually. But if it changes so much, and not necessarily around a few core features inherent to humanity, then what is it that determines this change?
Well, the development of productive technologies, the consciousness people develop through experience under the existing mode of production, and more. If you wanted to get more fundamental about it, you could say everything arises out of a material basis. We can't have an advanced, interconnected, highly productive (not necessarily equitable, just productive) society like we have today, when the only tools we have are spears, bows, etc. Similarly, we can't have a hunter-gatherer society without first abandoning our industrial technologies. Social orders require a material basis, in this case mostly technology/resource availability.
With that concept established, let's move on and try to figure out what it might be like to live in a future where technology is entirely self-sufficient, eliminating the need for human labor. To understand this advance and what it would change politically/socially, we have to understand what we have now, economically/politically/socially.
What we have now is capitalism. That is, a system predicated on the private, individual ownership of the means of production. Under feudalism, this was expressed as ownership of land, and slave society expressed this as ownership of slaves.
The tools of production, part of the overall means of production, have advanced to the point where no one person can really generate a product all on their own. 100 people working for 1 hour might make a car, but one person performing their job in a car factory will not make a car, no matter how much time they're given. This means, for the most part, production has been socialized. That is, it's necessarily a collective process. A car has the labor of hundreds or thousands of people put into it, including the slave miners in the Congo, the repressed producers in Latin America, and maybe the place where it is finally assembled (allowing them to claim it was "made in America" or something). Diving into how global inequality came to be, like how those who export the most are the poorest countries and those who import the most tend to be the wealthiest, would take a long time. I recommend The Wealth of Some Nations by Zak Cope if you want some technical details.
The political order that currently exists initially arose to protect those who owned these means of production against those who used them to produce value. Wealthier owners even hired gangs and militias to kill or terrorize smaller owners into selling their property, allowing the wealthier owners to consolidate and expand. This early chaos gave rise to powerful owners that needed to coordinate, as the number of people who owned became fewer and the number of people who worked became many (a process very significantly advanced by the industrial revolution). This led to the expansion of the state power, which had previously been kinda small and used to regulate debts/national defense/etc. Private militias like the Pinkertons still existed, but were also frequently aided by a less effective state police. They found that having people from a community police workers who went on strike was less effective than importing people from elsewhere, so you'll often have federal police or militias whose leaders are themselves business owners breaking up strikes. A really interesting example from American history is the Lawrence Textiles Strike in... I think it was 1911. Worth learning about imo.
This relationship changed after a number of successful and attempted revolutions led by various socialist and anarchist movements broke out. Conditions were miserable, you'd often find children being maimed and exploited in factories and whatnot, while workers got paid just enough that they would literally starve as soon as they became unable to work, then were easily replaced. These people banded together and threatened to overthrow the government and take away the rights of their bosses to what they collectively produced.
This is how the US got the New Deal reforms, actually. The state leaders, prompted by a number of wealthier owners, gave concessions in order to stop a revolution from happening. The building up of social democratic states internationally occurred mostly after WWII, during the cold War. The Soviet Union was the first massively successful worker-run state. It had plenty of issues, but the main thing it did globally was inspire and materially support revolutions worldwide (this is a more complicated topic, but I'm gonna brush over it), and provided to its people universal Healthcare, education, guaranteed jobs, almost full literacy, etc. Suddenly, this example threatened the entire capitalist world, and on top of the cold War, the US and many other countries tried to project themselves as a consumer Utopia with no poverty or struggle. American exceptionalism and whatnot.
With the Soviet Union adopting significant policy revisions in the late 50s, and basically adopting capitalism in the late 80s/early 90s and collapsing, this need to compete went away and things started to decline for workers worldwide pretty rapidly.
Basically, I'm saying all this to say that a capitalist future where labor is done by technology is not possible. We currently produce more than enough food to feed the entire world, but without scarcity, there is no profit. If everyone had food, food would be near worthless, so food is destroyed to keep profits up. Similarly, a world where everything is produced without labor would be temporarily very profitable for the first companies to implement it, but would render everything produced into something without value.
The most likely scenario where capitalism kinda survives is with the implementation of a UBI. Nobody works, everyone is paid some kind of subsistence wage, and then we have to pay for what is produced by machines in abundance. There are lots of problems with this, though.
More likely, self-sufficient machines would be outlawed by capitalist states, or permitted only within particular industries. After all, if infinite food could be produced without human labor, then everyone living a privileged life from selling food would likely lose that privilege, because we only need so much food.
The good future is socialism. I'm not speaking from a purely moral perspective, here, either. Socialism, or the lower stage of Communism, is where workers own the means of production. Since the majority of society has only their labor to sell, it is in our objective material interests to collectively own the tools we collectively use to produce things we collectively need. When everyone exists as someone who works (excluding children/retired people/disabled people/etc, who would be taken care of) and benefits from their work, individual ownership would cease to exist. Over time, we would culturally transition from owning - in part individually and in part through a democratically organized social ownership - the full value of what you produce to not really having a concept of ownership. Self-sufficient machine production fits rather neatly into this socioeconomic arrangement.
Wish they would go on and port this (and the first) to console
How did you know I'm a vod watcher?
Hell yeah!
Should play Elden ring or dark souls jabo
No. That is over played as hell
@@Hero0fLegend420 There’s a reason for that
@@Hero0fLegend420Tell me you’re bad without telling me.
@@HopeforDespair say you have no life and no taste without saying either
@@Khaos87NGcontent
foocking FINALLY 😂
35:13 #joints4Jabo
Always participating 🫡
I recently became a federal employee and can't smoke anymore. I'm big fucking sad 🥲🥲
Finally
Bout dang time 😅
Xmas stream idea: Unarmed Jinxed playthrough - Jon Cockout
BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK
Hi chat 👋☺
Dumpy time
Fall out 2 🎉
You should play inscription
Goodbye cannon sponsor
First time watchin a vod, gotta say, your chat is hella annoying sometimes
Remember Ian?
Green Alein
Hurray fallout 2
Dumpy
Hey jabo instead of dark souls you should go and play ninja gaiden games 😂
Tried them. They're boring as fuck
@@Dukes3677 lol how ironic
@@Dukes3677 Guy only plays boomer games and thinks they’re “hard” by his standards cause he’s bad at soulsbornes.
1,800 views in 3 hours bro fell off
First
Dumpy