Bitcoiners are old-school, serious people. They highly dislike such bullshit as they have seen the entire “crypto” shitshow, and the AI bullshit is similar in many ways
I am Indian myself, so I have a better understanding about the internet sub-culture intrinsic to my country. This is a neutral stereotype about ‘WhatsApp Unkils’. It is a counter-reaction to ageism towards younger people, whose intelligence is mocked, simply because they’re younger - the Asian culture of “elders are always right” snubs Gen-Y, Z and younger folks. Now that internet has blown up in India, old people who are literate and take pride in this sort of elitism are embarrassing themselves with their “confidently incorrect” takes on the internet.
Basically the same is happening to boomers, e. g. in Europe, too. Also ageism is happening here too. I don’t know, how much worse it is over on your part of the planet, but here you’re also not taken seriously when you’re young
I wouldn’t go as far as saying a total van is totally normal everywhere else, because I don’t know many countries with such a ban. I don’t know many other countries with concealed or open carry laws, so that’s certainly a difference.
Countries like Switzerland and Germany prove that private gun ownership can go hand in hand with regulation and enforcement, and not cause as many casualties as in the US.
Yes, and as far as I know so do the UK (even air rifles are rather restricted there) and Singapore. There will undoubtedly be others, but I’d be surprised if that’s anywhere near a majority (if you consider strict gun laws to be the ones that make it very hard for people to legally own firearms).
Sure, not total in the sense that gun ownership is illegal, but you if you take a fucking gun to a city you will have your license revoked and probably go to prison. That is unless the gun was kept locked down, dismantled and securely separate from the ammunition in your trunk.
The point is to remove guns from people and places where they can do the most harm, like in a population centre. They have no reason to be there, and most of the world recognizes this.
Ah, if that’s what you meant you’re absolutely right. I think there’s only one country in Europe where they have some (rather limited) form of carry by the public (Czech Republic if I’m not mistaken)
That is definitely not true. Even in Australia, which has some of the strictest gun laws, we don’t have a “total ban”. If you have a legitimate reason to have a firearm, you can get a license. And yes, legitimate reasons can include “guns are fun” - it just means that if that is your reason, the gun is only used at a gun club, and you can’t walk around the streets with it.
Edit: reading your other posts, it seems you mean “carried in population centres”. Stored and/or used in controlled environments within population centres, and even open carried by appropriately licences individuals (eg police) is still a far cry from a “total ban”.
The question was specific with regards to a “private city”, thus you can infer from context that the totality of “total” is limited to cities. This is also the reason I abstracted and specified it to mean population centres, because bringing guns to festivals is just as stupid and illegal most places.
I get the urge to be pedantic, but why be so after someone else has already pointed it out and I have answered them?
Praise the Founders for our glorious Constitution. I continually celebrate the fact that none of the morons who hate freedom have the ability to take our gun rights from us. Our gun rights will outlive you all, thanks to the strong protections the Supreme Court have bolstered that amendment with in the past 2 decades.
I was going to say yes and make a joke about song choice, but then realized that if this were actually happening then I’d probably be too distraught and focused on getting to her to queue up a sound track so was going to say no, but then I realized in my distraught state focing on getting to my kidnapped wife I probably wouldn’t bother to turn off the radio which is always on by default in my car… so basically, yes, I’d be listening to the local radio station at a moderate volume.
I generally agree with the idea that some amount of piracy is, will always, and should exist as motivation to improve the market, but I don’t like that everybody is taking this quote out of context for outrage bait. The context is incredibly important. When asked about whether subscription based gaming could be successful, he said that it couldn’t be successful until people became comfortable with not owning their games. He’s effectively on your side with that statement. He is saying that you guys want to own your games, therefore that model cannot succeed unless your ideals change.
I am not trying to persuade anybody one way or the other, but I personally don’t need to own my games. Most of the time, I buy a game, play it through once (if I even finish it), and then it collects dust. Digital games skip the manufacturing process and the dust collection step, but there’s no resale possibility. Ever since upgrading PS+ like 2 years ago, I’m pretty sure I haven’t bought a game. I’m actually happier to see a catalog of games that has good enough quality titles, gets updated frequently enough, and is cheap enough vs shelling out $70 on a game I might not even like. I don’t feel obligated to get my money’s worth out of something on the catalog, just my time’s worth. So I delete games before finishing them more often than I finish, mostly because most games today overstay their welcome. I don’t want to mindlessly grind for xp or gear or consumables just to get to the next road block. I don’t want 100+ hour adventures on a 40+ square mile plot of land full of padding. I want Celeste. I want The Forgotten City. I want Portal and Portal 2. I want Uncharted Lost Legacy. These games are shorter and finite and satisfying. I got to the last parts of Elden Ring and Ghost of Tsushima and realized that I just wasn’t really having fun anymore. They became a slog. Ghost of Tsushima was pretty easy to just delete and not really look back on because it was part of that subscription, but I felt some guilt deleting Elden Ring because I paid full price for it. That made me realize that the subscription gaming isn’t just paying for the games available, but it’s paying for the ability to play games with no real stakes. It’s cheap enough that as long as I enjoy 2 or 3 games per year, it’s worth it, and I probably enjoy 10+. I’m not gaming because I want to own a game; I want to experience the feelings that these games were artistically designed to elicit. I’m more interested in memories and experiences than material goods. I have enough (or too much) stuff as it is. As I get older, my time is becoming more valuable to me because I’m terribly, morbidly aware that it is a nonrenewable, real resource that is trickling away through my fingers and becoming more scarce with every second that passes. I enjoy a game more if I feel free to quit before wasting time not enjoying it. That freedom is what I’m really paying for. And it probably isn’t the popular opinion here, but that’s my perspective for anybody wondering why in the fuck anybody would ever pay for something and not even own it.
Also, fuck ubisoft, fuck sony, fuck every AAA company, this is not a bullshit astroturf ad. I just wanted to disrupt the circlejerk long enough for reality to permeate through. There’s obviously a market for this or it wouldn’t be offered, and it wouldn’t be offered unless it were popular enough and profitable enough. One day, it might be more popular than buying games, but as I look at the hundred shitty movie/TV streaming services, maybe now is the best this could ever be. Soon it could be subscriptions for publishers or even just individual franchises. That is the logical future step that will either vastly increase piracy or kill the popularity of gaming altogether. That and/or intrusive ads. I fucking hate capitalism.
I hadn’t considered (on more than a surface level) this viewpoint, I do agree wholeheartedly regarding getting your money’s worth doesn’t necessarily come down to ownership, but rather enjoyment/fulfillment.
I held a micro$hit game pass subscription for quite a while, and (almost) always felt I was getting my money’s worth out of it, if not for game pass, there’s quite a few games I’d never have considered buying, some of these have been the most enjoyable I have played.
With that said however, I much prefer not having to worry about a game in my library disappearing because a license ran out, or it was dropped from a service. I spend about 80% of my gaming budget on discounted stuff, usually a couple years after release, when most of the bugs are ironed out.
That’s what I was typically doing too. Only once every couple years was I buying a game near release for near full price. I almost certainly wouldn’t have tried The Forgotten City if it weren’t free, but it was one of the most impactful experiences I’ve had in gaming.
Idk about game pass, but stuff seems to stay on PS for a pretty long time. Once I caught up with a lot of what I cared about that was older to the catalog, I stopped thinking about when things might leave the service. The biggest shit seems to stay for a year or longer. If I’m still on one game for over a year, I should just buy that game and cancel the service lol.
Good post honestly. I’m the opposite way, I died way back on the DLC/Season Pass/Live game hill and to me a video game is a specific collection of files frozen in time forever, and I want the whole thing (including the bits they cut for DLC) and only the whole thing, I don’t want any updates, live content or anything of the sort and i’m most certainly not renting anything ever if i can avoid it, especially digital content. I pirate damn near everything nowadays. I also fucking hate capitalism.
I’m moved. I’m still on the 3-year±later discount cycle, but damn am I out of time for games. Work is draining during the week and the house always needs work on the weekends. The little voids of time available have stiff competition between chores, physical hobbies, and games. The hobbies and games need a relatively quick drop in/drop out phase, otherwise I’m not going to have time to get engaged. So I end up playing Fortnite/Rocket League/Fall Guys with zero hope of actually getting the season rewards I’d like or falling back on simpler games like Ace Combat or Forza Horizon to just cruise for a while. Meanwhile, the cool amazing story games I always want to pick up still get back burnered. I have more time spent replaying Portal 2 than I put into all of Fallout.
So, really, an interesting viewpoint. A service I thought was dedicated to the Ritalin-riddled adhd flashy-light-chasing children (as I say when I shake my cane at the 11-year-old that just built a fortnite fortress in the time it took me to build 3 squares moments before deleting me) actually has the potential to solve a time-guilt dilemma for someone with too much going on.
I also play Rocket League lol. It’s the only online game I play, and I’ve been into it ever since it became free to play. I’m not great at it, but it’s good fun that has become familiar, yet I can still see pretty continuous improvement in my performance, even if the ranks aren’t really reflecting it.
I’ve noticed that there’s a growing number of games that allow fast drop in and out. Hades saves whenever you enter a new chamber. You can save anytime and anywhere in Subnautica. Most of the games I’ve played lately are like that, where the game itself is more involved but the ability to start and stop at any time is very casual.
Congratulations, the trolley has derailed, crashing into the ground between the two groups of tied up people. All the passengers inside the trolley are now dead.
Looks like he’s just doing the shit that the US government already should have been doing based on existing programs that were actively mismanaged in the past. Promises not kept through administrative technicalities.
Not a bad thing, but a far cry from the political win it is touted as. Essentially, “we are no longer actively trying to fuck over people who applied to old debt-relief programs.” Weighing this against the predatory nature of student loan policy in the US, the unforgiving bankruptcy policies Biden directly helped put in place over a decade ago, and his failure to achieve the two student loan relief efforts he promised (or publicly campaigned on if you want to get pedantic), I’d say that the progress made is wholely insufficient.
We can simultaneously recognize that there has been an improvement while also recognizing that it has not been enough and these politicians must be held accountable for these policy failures.
These are not the markings of a promising or successful presidential campaign.
Ah yes, the ‘oh we can’t give credit for something good, it must just be lazy accident and/or incompetence’ crowd. After initially being blocked by the courts and Congress these forgiven loans are active actions where he could get around restrictions placed on him.
Still making excuses for the purposefully incompetent Democrats, huh?
Funny how the Republicans always manage to accomplish their ghoulish goals, but the Dems never seem to substantially progress any of the social benefits they promise to the people while quietly progressing all of the corporate goals they weren’t so vocal about supporting during the campaign.
You’ll notice I gave as much credit as they were due. Capable of letting Roe v Wade get overturned while having executive control, but incapable of codifying it when they had a majority in the Senate, SCOTUS and the executive branch.
They’re worse than incompetent, they’re complicit, and they’ll keep stringing people along with the threat that things will get worse if you don’t vote for them…as they participate in making things worse for everyone but their big $ donors.
Look up how filibusters work, then explain to me how, with a not even certain 51 vote majority in the Senate they codify abortion into law…
Also, please explain how the Democrats have any say whatsoever in how the supreme Court rules on Roe when the Republicans managed to stack the court with a 6/3 slant? Hint for you, the executive branch doesn’t get to tell the court what to do…
Lol, do you think history is only the last 4 years? They’ve had more than 50 years and multiple instances of having the supermajority. Has there been a 50 year filibuster?
How many times have the Democrats submitted a bill to modify RvW?
Keep making excuses for this abusive relationship we’ve had with the Dems. If things the majority of people actually wanted were passed, the Dems wouldn’t have anything to dangle in front of us and say, “hey, if you don’t vote for us, the other guy will take away these rights of yours that are in limbo.”
Excuses and bullshit is all they’ve had for decades. I’d say a century, but I’m trying to give them the benefit of the doubt. Got to give credit where it’s due.
If you look at these two links, Roe V. Wade was decided January 22, 1973, since that time there have been two congresses where a super-majority with a filibuster proof 60+ votes in the senate and the house in 75 and 77. A Republican (Ford) was in the president’s office for one of those leaving a single time with Carter in 1977 when it would have been possible without altering the senate rules to codify the decision, assuming that the R’s would have objected as they have from the beginning. I guess you can take it up with Jimmy that it wasn’t pushed into law back when the SC had just made their stance clear a couple years prior.
The next most viable times would have been in 1993 with Clinton and and 2009 with Obama, and both of those would have needed to either amend the rules or convince some R’s to go for it. It seems you’re overestimating the power they’ve had since the matter was before the SC the first time, particularly when it had been seen as a settled matter for more than 2 decades before the earlier of those.
I’m well aware of these instances and they were included in my link. I’m saying that these are not a good justification for their inaction.
If it’s important to protect your citizens why not amend the rules? The Republicans have no issues with this tactic. The Democrats are toothless and complicit by not taking the necessary actions to properly represent their people.
Do you think their corporate sponsors accept these kinds of excuses?
Lol, do you think history is only the last 4 years? They’ve had more than 50 years and multiple instances of having the supermajority.
You also cited that they’ve purportedly had several instances where they could have passed it at will when there has been realistically 1 viable time just 4 years after the original SC ruling.
A brief history of one of the biggest obstructions and also notably important tools at the disposal of the Senate. Interestingly enough one of the few times that the rules on it where changed actually was at the behest of the Democrats to allow for placing judicial nominees without the Republicans getting in the way. Actively doing away with it or making significant modifications has been kicked around for a while but outright removing it would all but nullify any input by the minority party. By forcing a 60 vote barrier to things you set the table for either working with people of different stripes (not a bad idea, we did use to get a lot more done that way) or if you happen to be in a space to have those 60+ all yourself then you can consider that a free ticket and strong demonstration of the will of the voters.
Do you think their corporate sponsors accept these kinds of excuses?
I’m sure that they’re probably held to a higher standard of performance than their Republican counterparts who tend to come from poor states with low educational standards. The R’s can be bought off for a relative bargain price to be sure, so less pressure to get on the ball.
The point of my comments is that neither party represents the people, my focus is only on the Dem’s because they market themselves on that platform.
The only real difference between the parties besides that marketing is that the Dem’s make excuses when they can’t pass a popular (with the people) bill. They put the blame on the Republicans and do little to find a way to make it happen.
As someone affected by these bills, I really don’t care why they can’t do what we want, only that they aren’t doing it. As an elected official, if it’s not possible, they need to make it possible. I guarantee this is the standard they are held to by those who fund their campaigns.
I understand the reasons they give for not being able to pass certain bills, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t excuses. A government should be run by the people and for the people. When it’s not, you’re seeing the minority party actually controlling the majority party and it’s a matter of a power imbalance. D and R can and do work together when they want to, but neither of them does this for us.
I’m not disagreeing with you because I misunderstand how the US government works, it’s because I understand and disagree with how the government works. The system needs to be changed and the parties with the power to do so are not enacting meaningful change. The only way to change a system is through leveraging power and the only power the people have is numbers.
So why apologize for them? Why buy into their excuses and defend their actions?
I don’t so much look to defend the D party as it stands, but rather the functional operation of the nation. The D’s are a far broader scope than the R’s and frankly I’d have loved to see something like a Sanders/AOC ticket created for president, but that’s not happening soon.
The Republicans have long been the party of NO. For them, a government de-fanged and paralyzed is a perfectly good thing, it would let the rich and businesses pillage and plunder unchecked. Let them oppress whomever they wish and force arbitrary rules on vulnerable populations at local and state levels where party plays a much smaller role. Matters like Roe and Dobbs wouldn’t exist without pressures from national level lelft-ish parties.
The Democrats often as not get the short end of the stick on deals in an effort to get anything whatsoever done. The ACA was a fairly large accomplishment given the opposition in play seeking to protect the existing middlemen and preclude those damn poor people from taking care away from the rich. They often give up things in exchange for protecting some group, the ‘fine you can keep the 47 round clips on your guns, but you have to stop shooting migrants for fun’ sort of deals.
We would all likely be better off if the existing parties where shattered up and the entire system overhauled to provide a more proportional representation, however that’s not in the cards as things stand. The other potential problem there of course is that the R’s would likely end up with maybe 10% libertarian, 20% boring basic conservatives, and the remaining 70% insane swastika wearing nuts. The D’s on the other hand would end up with a dozen tiny slices of varied groups who all want some very specific thing with great fervor. Where that to happen then the larger few groups born out of the R’s would run rampant over society more than they already do.
When I used to, like, try and be a good person, I often got to point out to Christians that I was the closest thing they would ever meet to their messiah. Watching their faces was so fun.
In the story, they are the Sadducees. Jesus scoffed at them. He went up against the Pharisees more, but that’s something like a modern American leftist arguing against the Democrats. They tend to agree 95% of the time, at least on paper.
It’s not the cables that are the issue, it’s the manufacturer that don’t design their products to USB C specification so they don’t charge via C to C cable like it should.
I understand that, but I’ve had USB C devices for almost a decade. I only buy full featured cables so it hasn’t been an issue, at least for me. Any time a device comes with a cable it goes into the trash.
So you see the issue and have a workaround. Good! But that doesn’t mean that, as you said, “it’s not the cables that are the issue.” Why throw them away if they’re not an issue?
I don’t need 36 cables that I’ll never use. I have a charger and cable in my living room, kitchen, bedroom, office, basement, and car. Those cables will charge almost every electronic device I own, 8 of them currently within eyesight.
The Tiger gained the dubious distinction of being the first jet aircraft to shoot itself down. On 21 September 1956, during a test-firing of its 20 mm (0.79 in) cannons, pilot Tom Attridge fired two bursts midway through a shallow dive. As the trajectory of the cannon rounds decayed, they ultimately crossed paths with the Tiger as it continued its descent, disabling the aircraft and forcing Attridge to crash-land the aircraft; he survived with a broken leg and multiple broken vertebrae.
From Wikipedia
I think just saying that it hit itself due to its high speed doesn‘t really tell the whole story.
memes
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.