Twitch.tv channels are like 50/50 right now. Some are ok, some aren't.
Basically all Riot Games (League, Valorant, TFT) are down, dunno about LoR.
762 karma · joined September 18, 2015
Basically all Riot Games (League, Valorant, TFT) are down, dunno about LoR.
He definitely made a ton of money, probably most of the money Mixer was investing in their entire launch, and now he's completely free to triumphantly return to Twitch (or take another deal).
I'm not sure how going to Mixer is a knock on him.
They have tried to launch at least 2 of their own, and both flopped hard.
I'm not going to get into whether or not this actually makes sense, but he is a massive celebrity among young millennials/gen-z.
Personally, I struggle to focus at home, and I have a pretty ideal WFH situation. I am fortunate enough/foolish enough to pay for a trivial commute, but I'm simply more productive in-office. And I don't think it is just me, many many problems can be solved in-office quickly without having to set up online calls (or letting an email thread drag on for weeks).
And the larger attitude among my office was that working from home is a burden. We're all software devs, we all have no strict barriers to WFH, but most people prefer going into the office most of the time.
The doctor part owns/is associated with an "out-of-network" lab where the tests were sent. Healthcare providers have default listings which are typically outrageously high, and negotiate with insurers for their "actual" rates. But by the in-network doctor quietly sending the tests "out-of-network", the insurer could be charged the outrageous fee.
With single payer, the price is the price. No bullshit, shady multilateral private negotiations in a marketplace where people's health is what is being wagered.
There is no such thing. A free market for healthcare will end up with people being trapped or simply lacking access. The entire concept of insurance is just a middle-man on a necessary service, one which should be considered a right for a society as rich as ours.
You either massively regulate private companies to force them to cover sick poor people at a big loss and compensate by making healthy people pay more, or you just get rid of the middleman and cover everyone directly (single payer).
Seriously, what value do insurance companies provide? How is it not just rent-seeking on people's health?
I feel like this would be more legitimately "anti-competitive" if these products were available in all sorts of places (like most of Amazon's merchandise). But the only place to buy Kindles and Echos is Amazon.
Manning was copying any and all classified content and exposing it indiscriminately.
Like, maybe it was important that certain things were exposed, but it wasn't a whistleblower act, it was a spiteful soldier acting out.
Manning was a spiteful security leak, not a whistleblower.
Just like to point out that that NYT hit piece didn't actually interview any software engineers IIRC.
Have you seen the Seattle skyline in the last 4 years? Lol.
I feel like this is a canned rant of yours that doesn't necessarily have a basis in this actual situation.
A single hour-long in-person meeting can forgo a month of back-and-forth online.
What needs to happen is a broadening of the definition of "top schools".
The issue is that a "top school" is a definition inherently limited in size. The top 10 is the top 10 regardless of whether there are 100 or 1000 schools being considered. Also, regardless of how many people there are, as an entire society we can only agree on a group so large before the "top schools" are no longer actually common knowledge (and thus not a "top school" in many important ways).
This is something that is occasionally mentioned in speculative apocalyptic scenarios. It will go bad, after about a year you wouldn't be able to use any random car without swapping out its gas with some from a better preserved source.
This would demand reproduction before action.
Why should people get more say because they live more spread out? Why do 100k people living across the countryside get more say than 100k people living in a city?
If 5 million people live in a city and 2 million people live in the countryside, the people in the city should have 5 reps to the rural 2.
Density is a completely arbitrary metric to use. Why not use race? Why not income levels? Why does density demand electoral privilege but no other metric?
The only actual answer is "status quo". They are overrepresented now, so there is a retroactive justification that somehow balanced representation is "unfair", when in fact it is only "unfair" because it is less than they already have.
I thought it was profits that were easily hidden. Hiding revenue seems like it would be very difficult.
What is true is the myth of individual efficacy. That a good CEO will have a successful company, and that a successful company is a sign of a great CEO. The reality is obviously that there are countless factors that affect company performance.
It's not that people think they are special, it's that we are very bad at correctly apportioning responsibility, especially when there is also a power imbalance that extends to determining that apportionment itself. We don't instinctively seek royalty (as in we assume leaders are special as a rule, though obviously in some contexts/positions we do), we seek simplicity (and pinning everything on a single leader is about as simple as it gets).
Either we have a fully managed economy (which I'm pretty sure the historical consensus is clear on) or it has to be guided by attaching costs to externalities.
All this is doing is just picking on Bitcoin because people don't like it. There is no principled economic or environmental argument here, just a biased rationalization applied inconsistently.
is because they are something of a commodity. It's low-skill work that is managed in bulk and individuals can be replaced with little friction. The core IT work is in demand by companies, rather than the other way around.
I mean, your point is also true, but it's more of an additional factor rather than the main one.