On the one hand, I agree, but on the other hand, this means that the ones supported by the billionaires will have the advantage.
Not that there's any guarantee media you pay for isn't owned by billionaires paying more. Or just promising things to bootlickers that they might never intend on following through on.
Never heard of the French, the culture that gave the world the word "cuisine"?
Not that that means anyone "stole" anything from the French, just that your statement was as dumb as it was racist.
Now if you had said a lot of north American cooking is boring and relies way too much on sugar and factories or smothering the food in pre-made sauces to hide its blandness, making other cultures' cooking really stand out here, I'd agree with that.
Yeah, the Linux community has done a shitload of work to bring Linux up to as good as windows (in the technical sense) and better than windows (regarding the often hostile user experience).
Microsoft is now helping with the marketing by making the windows experience even worse, driving more people to "take the plunge" only for them to realize there isn't a place where the floor suddenly drops away and you're left helpless, and that that actually is a better description for using windows outside of the rails MS wants.
If you use an AMD gpu, there's actually fewer steps to go from empty disk to playing a game, assuming that game isn't trying to do things with the kernel or is one of the rare games that aren't compatible for reasons other than anti-cheat (I've seen one game like that so far, forget the name of it but a logistics game that needed some dotnet library or something and I ended up giving up and refunding it rather than troubleshooting it until it worked, though others on protondb did say they got it working).
The days where windows gives an easier or better experience are gone, even ignoring all the next level enshitification of win 11. I've been on Linux for about a year now but wish I had switched sooner.
Goo goo ga chu?
You can't draw in pictionairy.
Behind the Bastards did a show on him. My memory is fuzzy on the specifics, and holy shit was it complicated trying to find out the information without listening to the episode(s) again, but no, he wasn't just a silly self-parody and stepped over the line to be a piece of shit.
Allegations against him:
So yeah, it wasn't all just silly running for president while living on a boat he frequently searched for stowaway spies due to deep paranoia (combined with knowing that he'd done things to make it realistic that authorities might really be trying to get him) and making shirtless videos while heavily armed. But I did think the same as you before hearing that episode.
I wonder what this timeline would be like if he had accepted that his submarine idea was naive despite the good intentions and just paid to have a nice setup with comfortable tents and catered food for the divers and kids as they got out of the cave (plus their families). Instead of attacking the guy and showing the world who he was, kicking off a cycle of him lashing out at his falling popularity, resulting in it falling even more, then more lashing out, etc.
Even if he was like that the whole time, he might have kept his mask on instead of leaning into it, probably would have never made that offer for Twitter, might have tried to appear neutral instead of joining Trump's campaign.
Though hard to say because the self-driving bs and cybertruck would have still happened and might have kicked off that cycle anyways.
This has all been an elaborate illusion created by Chris Angel.
To add on to what the other comments said, when the screwdriver slipped and the shell closed completely briefly, making the ball go critical, they all knew what happened and he immediately asked everyone in the room to note their position and calculated the approximate radiation dose they each got up figure out who was going to slowly melt into goo over the next few days and who was going to die of cancer over the years.
He knew right away that he was one of the goo ones.
So I'm not sure I'd call that heroic discovery because they already knew what would happen and were just showing off how much balls they had fucking with something so deadly.
Would you like some caviar and the finest champagne with that order of plural potato?
They might have set up the user agreement for it. Stackexchange did and their whole business model was about catching businesses where some worker copy/pasted code from a stackexchange answer and getting a settlement out of it.
I agree with you in principle (hell, I'd even take it further and think only trademarks should be protected, other than maybe a short period for copyright and patent protection, like a few years), but the legal system might disagree.
Edit: I'd also make trademarks non-transferrable and apply to individuals rather than corporations, so they can go back to representing quality rather than business decisions. Especially when some new entity that never had any relation to the original trademark user just throws some money at them or their estate to buy the trust associated with the trademark.
One time, I arrived at a small store as an employee was finishing their smoke break, exchanged friendly words as we both went towards the door. In that moment, I realized that if I open the door, it'll be right in his way and I paused, unsure about how to handle it. He ended up opening it for me, but the whole thing felt awkward as fuck, like my pause was because I was waiting for him to open it for me. Easily the worst door opening experience I've ever had. I'm a dude btw.
I really don't understand people who want that. It's so infantilizing to have someone else do basic shit for you, especially if you need to wait for it. It crosses a line from basic politeness to learned helplessness and is often a motivation for weaponized incompetence, so I also don't understand the people who do those things for a partner that demands it. It would be an instant loss of interest for me.
Seems to me like the bubble is getting even worse because of efforts to deny that it is a bubble in the first place.
Oh yeah, I understand the sentiment entirely. With so many dark patterns dominating the world we live in because we live in a society that decided to embrace greed instead of seeing it as a primary motivator of evil, I can't blame anyone that looks at the state of things with suspicion anytime there are downsides. And while it isn't realistic to expect as good audio from a built-in system as a separate dedicated audio system, I do think it's ridiculous that the standard is so dysfunctional that you either can't understand what people are saying or explosions are way too loud. Especially in this digital world where mixing separate audio channels isn't a difficult task. Streaming services should just have a stereo and mono version of the audio that is mixed well for that format if it is actually a harder problem than I think it is.
Some of it is practicality, but I don't doubt that greed also plays into it. I mean, even on the modularity side, I don't have the option of easily finding a TV without any speakers at all, or a TV without smart features that a) aren't as good as other options I have to access those features and b) were actually thrown in to spy on data, as your previous comment mentioned.
So yeah, I don't blame you at all for being suspicious of the companies that absolutely are trying to fuck their users because their real customers are data buyers, even if I do prefer my soundbar.
Can you do the Jackie Chan style "pull the slide off someone's pistol so they only have gun parts instead of a functional gun in their hand?"
I appreciate TVs not wasting resources on putting decent speakers in it that I'll never use because I did buy a soundbar over a decade ago that has decent sound and has outlasted the TV I bought it for. Plus TVs are so thin these days that they probably can't even drive decent bass, and the speakers they do have are rear facing, so they don't even drive the sound towards you.
Modularity isn't a bad thing IMO.
If the rate is so low in the US, why would it be unethical to do it there? You could also take samples from babies whose parents are getting or refusing the vaccine anyways. Sure, those decisions on their own will introduce more variables, but they could do a "outcomes of being raised by pro/anti vaccine/medicine parents" study.
If the goal was the truth, at least. It would be hard to do that study without any bias either way, with how political the whole thing is.