Hi, I’m Cleo! (he/they) I talk mostly about games and politics. My DMs are always open to chat! :)
They were more competent bozos. They ran Germany the way that your stupid friend gets laid more often because they aren’t smart enough to be embarrassed by themselves and they know only one goal.
Whereas these guys run America like an ugly stupid person that insists that no, actually, they have already in fact convinced you to sleep with them despite what your words say and the goal is to confuse you into bed.
That’s some harsh criticism for CDPR who otherwise has a really good track record for games not released during the height of COVID.
If you want an actual bad studio to paid with Bethesda, I’d argue Ubisoft is a much more apt pairing.
Well they are going somewhere. They’re dying. And younger generations don’t share the popularity of his idiocy. Plus if he does lose, the Republican Party may very well implode being unable to sustain itself on mixing extremist views with moderate ones. This election is for all the chips basically.
I can appreciate that but there are a million and one gifts to give him that your nation isn’t dependent on for survival. That’s the messed up part. You always take care of your people at home first, gifts second. Especially during a pandemic or other crisis. If people are panicking for a vital resource and you’re giving it away for diplomacy, you’re a dumbass
I think there is a difference between being nice to a hostile nation and giving up a valuable resource to them during a national emergency. Also that gesture got Trump nowhere and you have to look at the overall picture of what he did as president with foreign leaders.
Look at all the stuff he did for Kim Jong Un and how he snuggled up to that dictator and got nothing out of it. If anything, their meetings were a large detriment to the US relations with our allies in the end. Same thing with president Xi of china, he had plenty of great things to say to inflate that leaders ego but again we got nothing out of it and at some point it began to feel like jealousy for other dictators.
Just to remind everyone.
If you know someone that is a veteran and still wants to vote for Donald Trump, I really hope that you take them to the VA immediately and have them assessed for brain damage.
They do get cheaper but the cheaper ones don’t get made because they aren’t worth anything anymore. Like sure you can get a 500GB HDD which used to be a moderately priced option and is now basically trash or free. The prices go down, but the key is that consumers no longer want the old thing either.
It looks like it depends on the drive size but also I think the pandemic has leveled this out in recent years. Some additional data I found by BackBlaze shows a bit more of the story though they have changed their drive sizes which leads to a more interesting graph.
Interpreted the other way, I don’t think that makes sense because on the whole storage has always gotten cheaper with time. Hard drives may cost the same, but they’re larger capacity so really this would only work as an argument if hard drive storage space stayed the same and prices remained the same for consumers but went down for manufacturers.
Also there’s a lot of competition in the space similar to other chips so I don’t see how a company making NAND or platters can afford to sit on their hands like that. The whole point of drive innovation right now is to drive the price per GB down for B2B sales. And that usually translates well to consumer sales too.
Not at all. The price of storage has plummeted so much that most video games comfortably use ~100GB for large games and don’t care because even SSD storage is extremely cheap.
If you don’t believe me, here’s a post on Reddit that shows it off pretty well.
To clarify, I was thinking of the depreciating asset part as a loss of value the same way that a subscription is.
What is completely wild to me is that there are only 4 main apps: Reddit, twitter, instagram, and Facebook. Almost every public conversation happens on one of those platforms. And of those four platforms, one of them was bought by one singular person. Some people just don’t get the absolute scale of how much one person can just buy of our communities.
Like it or not, there are businesses on Twitter. Celebrities are easy to reach and talk to. Even companies use Twitter for support. News outlets post there. It’s a whole community. Was it a bit toxic? Yeah. But it wouldn’t have mattered. One guy bought it.
Similar to what you said, if you were to run the numbers on this I’m pretty sure owning twitter to Elon is not much different than owning a cable subscription to your average family. A whole community of tens of millions of people bought by one person and its success doesn’t matter. Capitalism is broken. And if you think that’s bad, imagine how he can affect your government when a Supreme Court justice goes for a small small fraction of the price…
Ah that makes sense, it’s oddly suspicious they’d do this out of the blue. Though I am curious at the arbitration. Can they not include a clause that just says that the forced arbitration can be waived by them when they so choose? I feel like they would make carve outs for these big cases if they could to where they can still arbitrate on smaller cases which costs them less.
(Also updating my post text, thanks!)
I don’t think that’s what he’s saying. You have to ask yourself a question: is offering an expensive upfront subscription for an evolving product an endorsement of assessing future value into your purchase. In my view, it isn’t and it’s not what he’s saying.
What he is saying is that to the minority who will find this a good value or who are okay donating to help them implement new features, go ahead and hit that button. Then separately he’s saying “the price will make more sense to more people as features are added” which is true but is not an endorsement of paying the current price for those promised features. At least from what’s in the article and what I’ve seen.
It’s the difference between saying that you should buy Minecraft because it will become an awesome game one day versus saying you should buy Minecraft because it’s either worth it to you now or you’re okay with helping to fund the development of future features you’ll receive. Those are very different.
Well now I’m hoping that the Switch 2 has a working emulator within a handful of months after release.
This isn’t what she’s trying to do. Instead of trying to blend in with moderates, she represents a radical and extremist part of the party that she wants to paint as the true moderates in order to leverage the opinion of the republicans upon Trump’s reelection.
The stance of tearing down speakers of the house is not new, she has railed against every speaker of the house this term for not enacting her extremist policies. What she is doing is trying to force the republican party’s hand to become more extremist because they can’t get over the line to win anything as a party without the extremists supporting them.
I fear that many people don’t understand this move from her but it’s clear if you’ve been paying attention. The point is to sell out the rest of the party that does not side with her. Her philosophy is “MAGA party or no party” and she has a small group of 5-10 allies that also believe this. If Trump loses, the party splits along these lines. If he wins, this fascist group will suddenly represent the whole party. That’s the bet she’s making.
I don’t have much to add because I agree with you on almost all of this. If the summation is pretty much that the Democratic Party is more unified in a post-trump era and that a third party would only serve to hurt them less because of that reason, then I agree with that. Whereas if republicans win this election, the US has a very dark future that may unite extremists and the death of the party would be less of a mess and more of an uphill battle for the entire country. At that point a third party would almost be irrelevant under the threat of a fall of democracy.
However, the only parts I disagree with are the parts where you talk about how the left is more cohesive. I think the problem that I’ve long noted with the left is that they all have very different political bends which does cause infighting and I think you’re underestimated the infighting that’s present. I don’t think the republicans have anything quite as serious as the liberal vs leftist split that the dems have. They have extremists but I’d point out that the extreme right is just an extension or an exaggeration of most of their views.
For instance, most republicans support anti-immigration policy and a lot of them do it due to some variety of racism or xenophobia. So when an extremist comes along and says some racist things explicitly, they’ll have everyone else on board for 90% of the conversation despite the different intentions.
Whereas with the left, liberals and leftists have very different ideals. And while it’s usually fine to combat the anti-republican ideals together, aside from that we are very split. You see this when Kamala is supporting fracking live on stage despite the ecological impacts that most of her party claims to be worried about. More moderate people will be convinced by this, which is why she said it. But the divide between a moderate democrat and a serious liberal or leftist on that issue would be night and day and you won’t have much middle ground there. Just something to think about.
First thing, I think that the Republican Party is highly likely to face a crisis of identity after Trump so you’re correct there. A moderate cannot appeal to their voter base anymore so their only choice now is to find another populist and those aren’t super common. But also people are mostly ignoring that Trumps existence has raised the voter participation numbers. I think after his disappearance, republicans will face far less participation and excitement.
I only get to talk about these things rarely but it’s interesting to think about. See once the Republican Party realizes it can’t win with votes and it can’t just cheat its way upwards, we get interesting results. That’s when they must pivot on things that appeal to moderates. They’d have to drop their anti-LGBTQ stances. I can’t see a world currently where they aren’t forced to give up on abortion. Basically most of their social issues would have to go. The party would look very different.
But then that all will piss off their extremists and they can’t do that. So this is what I think splits the party.
We talk optics though and I’ve always criticized the left on its optics. They aren’t good. And that outward representation reflects inwards. Let me tell you right now that being in the middle of discourse, the right doesn’t argue with itself often. The left does.
My main example is this genocide situation with Biden and Gaza. Plenty of leftists and democrats are still prepared to waste their votes because of that situation despite the harm reduction argument. The right won’t do this.
It’s weird to say that the left is more cohesive as a base when the current MAGA people are basically in a cult and I don’t know what’s more cohesive than a cult. That’s at least half of their current party voters. So aside from them splitting, they value loyalty and nationalism, both of which create an alliance within them. They also aren’t sophisticated voters so they’re unlikely to break rank because they aren’t really thinking much about positions.
I agree that the right is on more shaky footing than people think but it’s due to their current position I assume. For instance, consider if they had a young populist in their ranks. Think about if Trump was 45. We’d all be scared and rightly so because that cultist behavior would prevail and unite the party.
Mark my words, the only thing saving the party from not splitting is a new populist and that would be very bad for everyone if they found one.
As much as I think that the right is going to split after trumps loss, I think they’re also more cohesive than the left is by far. There are many flavors of leftists and while I think that there are also many flavors of right wingers, they have a much easier time banding around their goals because to be honest they don’t do much. They’re a regressive party. Regression is inherently more unifying than progress because we all disagree on how to achieve progress but regress is pretty simple.
Basically my theory is that the right would lose less from a split than the left because half of the left is ready to jump ship at any moment, as is the right, but the right is more cohesive due to shared identity and regression.
You realize that the US has nukes inside of the EU right?