propertymagnate

The value of your RSS feed comes from the websites you have the feeds from. The value of twitter comes from the tweets on twitter. The more terrible tweets and tweeters, either terrible in their quality or terrible in their offensiveness to the reader, the lower the value. The more terrible tweeters, the more they will inject themselves in to the dialogues that were previously considered non terrible by the reader. At a low enough value, when people are wading through the racist crackpot right wing sludge, they will stop using it.

That is a well thought out and incredibly depressing theory.

In a completely free market there would be no public property, by definition.

Ha okay fair point on how much people ethically rate the actions people are trying to ban/regulate here, but the EU aren't creating convoluted cookie pops forcing anyone to do anything. Those people are part of that literally everyone else you're proposing.

Unless your point is the legislation didn't go far enough? I didn't personally read it that way.

Your honour I hold it was not my client who did wrong, but the person who made the law banning murder in the first place.

For perfect dark the content you lost was the main game, so it was pretty essential for it.

I feel the balance in Duke Nukem is quite a bit different and less enjoyable from a pure game rhythm aspect - it feels more clunky and more about technical prowess then the game design excellence that Doom brings.

For me, the weapon damage to enemy damage in Doom (and its comparison in Duke Nukem) is part of it - in Doom, the common level enemies take a single shotgun shot, or possibly two. It enables you to get in to kind of flow state and with good reflexes etc, avoid damage.

In Duke Nukem, they introduce the pigs from pretty much the end of level 1, and there isn't a common weapon that can kill them before they can get at least a shot off. It's the same with most of the enemies they introduce after the pigs, as well.

The fact that in Doom the common grunts and shotgunners are hitscanners but have a bit of delay to firing and the imps fire physical projectiles leads to more tactical choice and literal maneuvering during a firefight.

I am sure there are arguments to be made about the increased complexity and breadth of Duke Nukems weapons, but both the damage they deal and the common enemies don't allow for the same flow.

This is still different - the article you post is a state acting in a way that is, by the quote you posted, illegal in the country it was performed. The actions in China are sanctioned and performed by the government, and are thereby legal.

In fact, the article you post is literally about the state offering monetary recompense for the act - hence, doing the very thing you asked for in your first post.

America is not as bad as China. These false equivalences are supporting genocide.

Maybe let's start with the easy stuff then, given that it's genocide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide

We (my partner and I) do enjoy streaming media to a degree, but I prefer physical like yourself. I also find a kind of (likely pretentious) comfort in having control over the media, as in knowing the version I am watching hasn't been edited or changed like airplane movies used to be.

In general though I recommend separating the acts of curating media (i.e finding it and cataloguing it) and watching or consuming it. I started doing this years back when RSS was a thing and I found myself doomscrolling through hundreds of articles, not able to remember what I had read (and sincerely enjoyed) a few hours earlier. I strongly recommend it to anyone who finds themself doing something similar.

Also unrelated, but Netflix's interface actively discourages searching for additional information on their content, as normally none of the titles, cast, etc, are text and highlightable/cut and pastable.

"One sec, I'll just turn my house off, I don't want it listening."

Because you have a headset strapped to you providing metrics indicating you are not wearing it. Because your work is now tracking your eye movements and they know you aren't focused in the way that the latest ai produced productivity metrics associate with the 2-4% gain they want this quarter.

Congratulations. Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Exchange, Microsoft Word, Microsoft Teams, Microsoft Excel, etc etc.

Microsoft owns the computer industry. "Use something else" is quite a weak argument in markets dominated by oligopolies and especially in this one. At the very most, the argument would be "use the other one".

Passwords are broken, now give us your face for facial recognition. Facial recognition is broken, now etc etc

That's not security for the consumer, that's security for their business model and being able to force the consumer in to a walled garden.

The list was compiled in 1995?

I can't comment for others but I didn't read it that way. I just knew the context and thought people might want to read about it, because it is interesting. Thanks for bringing it up in the first place.

"There is a Chinese citizen that is a very mediocre MMA fighter who goes around and challenges so called "grand masters" to show how full of BS they are."

This guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xu_Xiaodong

I only murdered them once isn't the best of legal defenses.

In terms of the discussion about it being a neutral thing, some points:

1. Elon Musk is afraid of AI for the reasons of the paperclip apocalypse problem. You would make something and it would consume all of the resource due to it understanding its need to self replicate and not the fact that its use of resources meant a lack of resources for everyone else and potentially the destruction of the society consuming the paperclips.

2. Elon Musk makes the worlds most famous line of environmentally friendly cars. It is believed he does this, or at least he attempts to sell them on the basis of, being environmentally friendly and saving the planet.

3. Elon Musk also then invests hugely in a decentralised currency that, by design, if it becomes popular, will use all available resources at the exclusion of any other ideology, due to it's decentralised design - including saving the climate, etc - so because energy production by and large destroys the climate, it will destroy the climate.

You can say this is a neutral choice, but mostly it just seems like a really dumb or contradictory choice. He (Elon) may well believe decentralised currencies are the future - he has also stated that as soon as a rampant unchecked production mechanism gets free, we are doomed. The apparent inability to connect the two is what I find so striking.

Oh that's excellent, I didn't realise it had been picked up again. Cheers!

I think that's only for the gameboy advance, although it is what most people are using for the GBA.

For the gameboy people use raw assembly or I think GBDK if using C, although I think there are some problems with GBDK.

https://github.com/gbdev/awesome-gbdev#c

I don't agree with your comparison of the two terms above - and in fact I think they are complementary, not contradictory as you suggest. The right to speak has been to say unpopular opinions and be free from government oppression, not from social opinion.

If "freedom of speech MEANS freedom from consequences", as you suggest, then what would be the point of speaking with our absolute freedom, as no one would be allowed to form an opinion on it?

Freedom of speech has always meant "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" in America, it is just that you have the right to say it and be free from government persecution. You can and will be judged on it socially, which is what this paper says is not right, as workplace employees are self censoring their views because people will take a principled stand on their opinions.

This paper seems to want people to be able to state exactly what they please and for there to be no social repercussions - which the first quote you have acknowledges there are.

"I do not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it" contains "I do not agree", meaning that the individual who uttered it has made an opinion based on someone else's speech.

The pinephone does this, they call it "convergence".

https://twitter.com/hadrianweb/status/1384548445579583489

https://pine64.com/product/pinephone-beta-edition-with-conve...

(be aware the pinephone software is still very much in beta, also sorry I couldn't find a better link then a few tweets)

Sounds a lot safer to whitelist what can be zapped rather then blacklist what can't, no? I mean, this is a moving autonomous laser platform we're talking about.

I don't have any of the calculations, but I would argue that we probably have one and it is the fiat global monetary system.

If bitcoin was a proof of stake and was the global monetary system I would have to re-think my opinions - at the moment it just seems like a cross between the worst aspects of Wall Street, the cookie clicker game, and the AI Paperclip Maximiser problem.

To rephrase that, Bitcoin uses more energy that all of MGM's properties in Las Vegas.

Really? I can appreciate not wanting to use DDG for a number of reasons, but because they are pushing for financial legitimacy on the basis that there can be an ad industry but it shouldn't be an arms race?

Yes thank you, please make a market out of privacy!

edit: I should probably say, please prove that privacy respecting markets are viable, I'm not suggesting the commoditisation of everything, lol.

I suspected the headline was sensationalist but on reading the article, I would say it isn't, and the headline is correct.

It has examples of the campaigns of national political parties of different nations (hence world leaders) using a loophole that facebook pages can do certain things facebook accounts can't to boost their engagement and/or avoid the scrutiny an account would get.

It also has a really good non-techy breakdown explaining how it works. I think it's HTML5? Having read it, I would say it's a really good piece of journalism.

Great comment - the extremes of the overton window determine what is acceptable as the middle. And the middle is crucial, as we are, as people, almost always framing issues as having two sides, and compromising to something in that middle.

Without one of those extremes including your own position or including it and being further left/right, no compromise will ever happen that includes what you want.