TotallyHuman @ TotallyHuman @lemmy.ca

Posts

14

Comments

110

Joined

2 yr. ago

Headlines often change after publication. Everyone's A/B testing these days.

You might disagree with the argument, but it's not completely random. From the US, we gained most of the benefits of having nukes and spooks, without having to maintain them ourselves. Since we can't trust them, we now have to decide if it's worth developing our own.

Because when everyone knows that your only play is to support the reds, then the reds themselves know that they can abuse that desperation, renege on deals with you, etc. After all, what other plays do you have?

Dropping the deal is short-term disadvantageous, but by establishing a reputation for punishing allies who don't uphold their end of a bargain, they can be more influential in the future.

May not be a very useful one, but it hardly seems bizarre. Of course I wish that fascists were less fascist! Then there would be less fascism, and I don't like fascism and want there to be less of it! Wishing doesn't do anything on its own, but it's not a strange wish to have.

Maybe more of a mystery story? Just take the "investigative reporter" angle and run with it.

If I was a woman I wouldn't have dysphoria, no? Unless it altered my body without doing anything to me.

(I guess if it was a sadistic genie it could also alter the brain but not the body, handing out dysphoria without physical change.)

I don't like that the conservative party is using provincial funds to advertise for their political views -- especially with advertisements which aren't rigorously truthful. It feels slimy, but does anyone know if this is legal?

I think both of these positions are important for coercing Sony. If everyone who was upset left permanently and kept their bad reviews, Sony would have no incentive to backtrack their next boneheaded decision. But it's also true that if everyone jumps back in as if nothing happens, they have no incentive to avoid excessive greed in the future.

Most of the players will come back, and so Sony will be rewarded for compliance. But some players will be permanently alienated, and those permanently lost profits will be a reminder of what happens when you try to screw your players over.

Yeah. Part of me is uneasy with the monopoly, but unless they start abusing it I don't think there's really a problem. Besides, they're not the same as a railway: nothing's stopping a game company from directly providing executable downloads, and some do.

Depends on the income period -- I'd do 25% of daily income for a first offence.

I see. Would there also be an arc if you put your hand near the generator while it was running, then?

Does the human body rapidly discharge into air or something?

Okay, so you're insulated from ground. The generator charges you up. You are at the same charge as the generator. You let go of the generator. Why is there a potential difference?

Thing that confuses me is that when you let go, you should have the same charge as the generator. No charge difference, no arc. Unless I'm wrong about something, which I probably am (hence my confusion).

Why wouldn't the electrons go to ground through your body while you're touching it?

It's actually counterproductive! People who want to screen stuff about abuse from their internet experience can set up filters. Those filters are broken when you censor the relevant words!

Interesting. Unlike most measures, bike lanes are also a positive on their own, climate change or not. I assume this analysis doesn't include negative-cost solutions like carbon pricing.

That's not how exploitation works, not really. The rich will exploit as much as they can. Prices are already set to maximize profit. The rich can't pass higher prices along, because if they could charge more, they already would. Cutting taxes on big companies doesn't create jobs or lower prices -- and raising taxes won't destroy jobs or raise prices.

They're condemning microtransaction-based models, so it might not be bad... but I'll believe it when I see it.

The teacher was selling prints of the art for hundreds of dollars. The article doesn't say how much profit they made, but it could be substantial. There's also the privacy violation, and split amongst ten kids it's $160,000 per victim. Don't get me wrong, that's not nothing, but it seems reasonable for such a wilful and knowing violation of copyright, rights to one's image, and privacy rights. (Assuming all alleged facts are true.)