Indeed. I had a friend who worked in freight forwarding - Japanese company, him a Japanese citizen, but based in US.
Once he got his green card via lottery, his pay went up and his mandatory overtime went down. His Japanese coworkers without green cards still had to work late.
Sony will happily shoot themselves in the face rather than give in to their customer's desires.
Microsoft will try and force their customers into something they don't want, because it's obviously better for Microsoft than their customers. They may succeed - success being "not completely losing all of their market share".
Nintendo will figure it out somehow, even if it means pivoting out of gaming altogether. Chances are - they will choose to make their customers happy instead of shooting themselves in the face. But they will try to shoot in the face youtubers and modders who make their customers happy.
On balance, Sony will most likely shoot themselves in the face, and survive to take whatever market share Microsoft gives up. Somehow.
Valve can be trusted to maintain its current customer friendly policies only as long as GabeN is in charge and he is approaching retirement age. Perhaps we'll be fortunate and he manages to appoint a successor that has the same vision he had and, then again, perhaps we won't.
People forget the social aspects of console gaming and underestimate the ”it just works” factor. Nintendo in particular has a rather unique hardware platform with their controllers. Sure, you _can_ somewhat replicate it on PC, but the portability and OOTB experience is pretty good. Of course the switch is underpowered as hell, but you don’t need PC perf for the games you want to play in the social console form factor. You pay for the complete experience.
Needless to say though, vendor lock-in still sucks, and the switch store is pretty terrible.
The problem seems to be that a certain tribe of always online far-right leaning sociopaths have decided MacDonald is one of them.
He wasn't.
I am being charitable with this assessment, too.
MacDonald was extremely funny, even if you were liberal. His comedy was not political, and maybe that is kind of the appeal to conservative leaning people - some kind of "retro" appeal. If you are wondering what I am getting at, read the book, "The Compleat Practical Joker" from 1953.
I'm a huge Norm fan. Having watched his many interviews, seen and listened to his stand-up, seen his podcast and netflix show many times, I can say that he was clearly quite conservative, though not a bigot or hateful.
There's also more to the story here. Not that it's in any way justified, bur this guy's wasn't targeted only because he tweeted about Norm Macdonald.
> Having watched his many interviews, seen and listened to his stand-up, seen his podcast and netflix show many times, I can say that he was clearly quite conservative, though not a bigot or hateful.
This is worthwhile to address. Norm was a conservative, for sure. There's nothing wrong with that.
There is something wrong with anti-social (or sociopathic) behavior. That behavior is not associated with conservatism any more than it is with liberalism. I've known hardcore punks who you'd think would end up solid democratic voters, but nah. It's not so simple.
Norm was not a sociopath, nor someone who was a poisonous partisan or tribalist, as near as we can tell. It wasn't in his comedy, it wasn't in his personal life from what people say.
He wasn't part of the "tribe" which is swatting this family. These people feel he was part of their little tribe, is what I am saying. And they are wrong. He's wasn't.
> These people feel he was part of their little tribe, is what I am saying.
I think this is an invention on your part. While his comments about Norm MacDonald may have been the inciting incident, the continued harassment of Tomlinson has little to do with them.
I mean I'm sure they exist somewhere, but parent was talking about "these people" being the group swatting Patrick Tomlinson and I don't think that's the case.
We don't really know if he was a conservative because he was always doing a bit. The only thing we know for sure about him is that he was a deeply closeted gay fella.
And you think they wouldn't directly benefit from solar power?
What if the cornfield owners got paid market rates for the power generated when that land is given over to solar? This should be (and ChatGPT agrees) much more profitable given that it is vastly more energy efficient.
Directly? No. Indirectly? Of course they do. Everyone does.
Realistically the solution to NIMBYism is to pay the neighbours, but that's not really practical.
NIMBYism isn't rational, it's a manifestation of fear of change, even if they past state of affairs was worse than the future one. I live in a city where the anti-datacentre campaign isn't about some pleasant locale, but a disused toxic industrial land in a steel-mill complex over half a km away from any actual homes.
> Realistically the solution to NIMBYism is to pay the neighbours, but that's not really practical.
If we pay each farmer to generate solar (and maybe also stop paying them to grow corn beyond what's actually economically viable), why would they care what the next farm over is doing? I thought we were talking about places where people live too far apart for "backyards".
They can make all objections or decisions they want on their own private property. It seems people have too much levers to pull to control what others can do with their property.
A lot of people have dumb opinions grounded in ill-thought-out ideas like "natural cornfields are morally superior to human-built infrastructure buildings" or "solar power is a Democratic party conspiracy". In general it should be easier for property owners with skin in the game to make good land use decisions to make them without having to need small-d-democratic opposition from locals with bad incentices and values.
Anyone with kids probably should be aware of Mercury - it's an important guideline during pregnancy, all the mercury in fish. I don't have kids, so I am not sure if the doctors explain how all the mercury got into the fish...
1.53 × 10¹⁵ molecules per 1mcg. Which is 15 orders of magnitude larger than a single molecule. If 2mg of fentanyl is considered potentially lethal that would place carfentanyl at 20mcg, though I’ve heard conflicting reports on potency with some placing it at 10x not 100x. So roughly 16-17 orders of magnitudes.
I don’t take fentanyl but I regularly take signaling peptides where the doses are typically in the mcg range and still rather potent - though with signaling peptides the response curve typically flattens out so bigger doses don’t necessarily mean stronger effects - they can be saturated. Depends on what you’re signaling though.
I had correctly predicted my hypersensitivity to semaglutide (ozempic) so started using it for treating autoimmune issues at a dose of 25mcg and I still ended up with temporary gastroparesis.
This is why you have to codify in law accountability and oversight.
reply