wernercd

You can say it doesn't make sense... but the emulator crashed and my game was unrecoverable.

I don't have the PC anymore but I know what I had happen.

I stopped emulating when my game crashed and I lost weeks of BotW. I moved back to the switch after that lol.

Emulation was awesome. Until...

Not to belittle how shitty MS is... but you can use 11 with offline accounts. You have to jump through bullshit to do so but you can still do it.

The average person shouldn't have to know how to do it though.

I'm using Windows 11 that I installed yesterday that has offline accounts. Enabled by jumping through bullshit.

"capitalism" Is it in the room with you? Do you need assistance? Did the evil capitalism touch you in your naughty place?

But seriously... everything uses computers and programming ties everything together. I don't think you have to be a grand master programmer but having those skills make you a better employee.

The real pesky question is why do you think socialism, communism or the alternatives to "capitalism" wouldn't benefit from having people able to use better tools? Productivity multipliers would help "The People" and The Masters in charge of the authoritarian dictatorship alternatives to "capitalism"...

"does not have higher priority"

Where do you have ANY evidence that his kid is being neglected? We are literally talking about 1 week. 1 freaking week. A long week of over time.

"misogynistic"

lol working with his wife as a team to take care of their kid is misogyny? I'm sorry but you obviously have a different definition. Because there's nothing bad about sacrificing for your family - even if you have fun while doing so.

Just like my question about you having proof of anything bad about this exchange as one half of the couple... what proof do you have of anything nefarious, misogynistic (other than the wording you don't approve of) or being "pussy whipped". I question your motives as your statements show you have your own bias that makes having a real conversation with you questionable.

"exceptions, not the rule of thumb" Correct. They are exceptions because they have fun doing what they do. the vast majority of people don't enjoy what they do. They work to live. Most people have jobs - not careers they love. They make money to provide for those they love (even if that's only themselves).

The rule is people sacrifice for themselves and their family.

The only part of this conversation that's the exception is the fact that this guy gets to play with an over priced toy and gets paid for it. He's still sacrificing (and without proof of neglect or harm to wife/kid - at least no more than any other 9/5 job would be considered).

Nothing you've said challenges my position that he's lucky for doing it but he's still sacrificing for his family. Props to him.

"it isn't him making the sacrifice" lol

So you think him not spending time with family isn't the same sacrifice that families around the world make every day in and out isn't a sacrifice?

Why do you think it's not a sacrifice? Because he enjoys his job? because it's "fun" and "entertaining"?

The problem here is that he is making a sacrifice - the sacrifice of giving his time to a career to provide for his family.

Let me ask you an honest question... if he spent that 40 hours in a cubicle and an addition 10 hours commuting to make less... would you consider that not a sacrifice? Of course you'd consider that a sacrifice - because he'd be giving his time to provide for his family.

So in this situation... he's giving his time to provide for his family.

Why does the fact he enjoys it/"it's playing with toys" challenge the fact that he's sacrificing his time to provide for family? Is it the "toy" aspect? Working from home? Jealousy about how lucky he is?

I work as a computer programmer. I sit behind a desk and I have fun solving problems... while getting paid to use technology.

You may not see it as work... but the guy is literally getting paid for it.

No offense but it doesn't matter what you see or what you think you see - what matters is what's really happening.

And what's really happening is this guy has gotten REALLY lucky: He's got a job where he can have "fun/play" doing something that pays his bills. That doesn't make his "sacrifice" anything less because it's enjoyable (sacrificing time with wife/kid(s)). It makes his sacrifice enjoyable but he still has to make the same sacrifice that parents around the world make on the daily.

I guess I'd ask you honestly... do you see professional streamers or gaming streamers as working? Destiny, Vaush, Asmond Gold, pewdiepie, etc? I know streamers that spend 12 hours a day online engaging in content to make money - and a few of them have kid(s). They are having fun and making money while working their asses off to better their lives and, presumably, their families lives.

They aren't slaving in a coal mine or sitting with dead looks in their eyes in a cubicle but they are making money and ends meet. Just because they are lucky (and work their asses off) doesn't mean they aren't also sacrificing.

But I digress. I'm lucky enough to love what I do as well so I think the fact this guy can provide for his family by playing with toy is fucking awesome.

"priority #1" and as part of his priority? making money to pay the bills. While wife takes care of the kid.

People around the world and throughout history sacrifice for their kids... we should all be so lucky. He's able to sacrifice from the comfort of home... some sacrifice in coal mines or on oil rigs or on long commutes to long days in factories.

Complaining that dad has to work to provide is a first world problem.

Some people have to make sacrifices for their families - making money takes time? effort? sacrifice? ZOMG! HOW DARE HE!

Selfishness? sacrificing for family - both on the fathers side to provide but also on the mothers side to take care of the fort?

That's not selfishness. That's called being a good father. husband. wife. mother.

Doesn't matter how much people who want peace invest when terrorists who want to continue fighting are in charge. There is no "modern, prosperous, stable Palestinian society" when terrorists are in charge.

They have had better options... and still choose the path they are on.

"tax avoidance" Otherwise known as what every sensible and smart person does because that's not the "governments money".

AKA: "How dare people want to keep their own money and not freely give up larger and larger percentages to ever larger government programs that are inefficient cesspools of mismanagement and corruption".

I'll match people saying "fuck you for wanting to keep your own money" with a fuck you for supporting the destruction of businesses on the notion that it's the governments money in the first place.

"shining beacons" The same cities in states that are now in massive deficits? or covered in feces? with massive increases in drug and homeless problems? The same cities that have people feeling from states because of overregulation and overtaxation?

Those are the shining beacons of success?

"its backwards" Probably but we both got the idea I was pushing - which I stand behind. The cost in electricity vs gas does tilt towards electricity but that excludes the cost creating and the lack of recycling options.

"recycling happens all the time" Sure for some stuff... but electronics are not in a good spot on recycling.

https://cen.acs.org/materials/energy-storage/time-serious-re...

2-5% of batteries are recycled. in 2019. You think the numbers have gone up that far? I don't think so.

That's not counting the environmental damange done getting "the most richest sources" into a usable state.

"no way" I'm talking reality... not could be. should be. will be.

Is.

Today? Shit isn't recycled. IE: Windmill blades

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-turb...

One of the key pieces of the green "solution" is filling up landfills with megatons of unrecyclable material.

And that's not talking about the "cheap" batteries.

https://www.businessinsider.com/electric-car-battery-cost-re...

Batteries are expensive. Insurance is expensive. Getting materials is expensive (and destructive). Recycling electronics and batteries is expensive (and thus filling up landfills).

I'm sorry but at the end of the day? The "solution" of green tech is no solution so far. It's simply promises and ignoring the problems because gas "stinks".

"Shit is real" my above statement is real as are the problems with "green".

1.5 years to have spent less on gas compared to electricity is what I assume you're saying... YOU get paid back for getting a car marked down by government programs that make the car cost less than it should and in exchange you have a vehicle that will be last a lot less because the batteries can't be affordably replaced.

I question that assertion as most of the math that I've seen behind those equations gloss over the creation of "green" tech (battery creation is not green. megatons of windmill blades in landfills is not green. unrecyclable stuff, etc). It also glosses over the long tail problems (recycling, or to be more accurate the lack of).

I'm not buying that assertion because it's pointing at a tree and ignoring the forest of problems. Its a rosy glass tinted answer designed to ignore the greater conversation.

Fires happen less often with EVs... but if they are 20x worse and spew worse toxic chemicals? Then how is it "better"? People get away slower but in exchange for batteries that cost tens of thousands to replace? Strip mining to get the rare earth minerals? etc.

"one has to poke" definitely... which is why the "i read" line really stands out as a limited comment which I am poking at. The notion that EVs are "better" is an interesting view considering the cost to make, the dangers and the waste left behind.

Safety is great in EVs until a battery pops and it takes a 3 alarm fire crew and 36,000 gallons of water to put it out.

https://www.thestar.com.my/tech/tech-news/2024/01/02/unusual...

> “This was a first for Autauga County,” the fire department wrote. “Electric vehicle fires are unusual and present unique challenges and dangers to firefighters.” The smoke from these types of fires contains toxic gases such as hydrogen fluoride and hydrogen chloride, officials said. The batteries can also reignite even after they blaze has been put out, the fire department added.

"I read about accidents people had in their nice 5 year old gas cars" So the question becomes why is "I've read about" a valid response and how does it stand up against "I read about how dangerous EVs are in a random article somewhere online sometime"?

Safari, without hesitation doubt or debate, is subpar compared to the alternatives. You can claim "privacy" all you want but at the end of the day Safari is lackluster and neutered to "nudge" people into the Apple Store so Apple can get a 30% cut.

Privacy? Riiiiiight. Apple isn't using it's market place to stifle competition and limit choice out of the kindness of their hearts.

"M$ CEO" yeah... good thing you have IE 2024 installed on phones without the alternatives available that existed on Windows. Nope... you're stuck like a good slave who's $mart enough to not use M$ and instead you get the joy of being a good donator to Apples bottom line instead of Googles.

At the end of the day... nothing in your response changes the fact that Apple limits choices and holds the industry back with Safari which is a shit option that couldn't compete against real options.

"XBox" xbox is a gaming console not a phone. It's tied to a TV and not the center of your life. It also has competition in PS, Nintendo and gaming alternatives like Android and iPhone.

XBox doesn't have shitty safari on it as a core app to force people into the XBox store. You can also load CDs/DVDs into it purchased outside of it. Can you resell iPhone games? No? didn't think so. tons of reasons why "derp xbox" is a bad comparison.

I'm personally okay extending forcing alternative app stores onto XBox... but the scope is different and you know it - no matter that you try to deflect from how shitty Safari is. Your hate of "M$" doesn't make Apple any better.

"mostly wrong" except it's not. Safari is under developed, restrictive and... bad.

"Based on usage" Chrome is doing something right but that doesn't mean better options don't exist. JS exists and is massively popular but that doesn't make it the "best". Most popular also doesn't mean it's not horrible in its own right - like Safari (and JS, etc).

"firefox" You use firefox because it's better... better than what? Safari for one.

"let me try your argument for size" Just because people pay doesn't mean it's better and because it's popular doesn't mean it's better. People buy ripped up clothes at a massive markup because it's "better". You keep saying Firefox is better even though it's not "in" or cool.

Nothing in your response addresses the fact that SAFARI is subpar amoungst its peers because Apple uses that to push people to the App store. Likewise, they "pair bond" stuff to phones so 2ndary markets can't fix their stuff. Not because safari is better... not because their parts are better... because they get 30% on the store and they get the fees for fixing stuff "properly". Same for their custom connectors (which are on the way out)

Your focused on Safari vs Firefox. You're ignoring the forest for the tree.

Apple as a whole can be a better product (arguably, the complete package is "better" because it's more consistent and "secure" and all that than say Android) while also having parts that are worse. Safari is a part that's worse (and as incentive, the 30% cut on app store $$$).

"different priorities" I'm all for better regulation and some places are headed in the right direction (IE: USBC requirements, sideloading requirements, banning google from monopoly practices on their store, etc)... but that doesn't change the fact that safari is the IE of today - forced on customers, ignored by its creator and clearly worse as you admit in your stalwart defense of Firefox.

In the grand scheme of things. In a world billions of years old? 3 years isn't much of a delay. And those features, with the small "delay", still weren't "always" available - which was the claim ("the api always had those features").

"most would immediately jump" and why is that? because Safari is a subpar experience.

You can try to justify it all you want because "Google Bad" (and not that I disagree at least in spirit) but at the end of the day? Apple is giving users a worse experience as a method to lock them into the App Store and get their 30% cut.

To add to this... it's not just that they've failed to implement standards: They have actively denied the ability to install alternatives.

It's one thing if Chrome was Chromium and was simply blocked from low level stuff because "reasons"... but that's not where we are.

Chrome, for example, is at its core on the Apple Store a reskinned Safari because alternatives simply aren't allowed.

This isn't a regression and failure to implement standards... this is active activity to lock people into a lesser experience while actively blocking better.

This is worse than IE on Windows as at least with IE on Windows you could install alternatives.

I would interpret it as a stance and balance it against the fact that Israel - including Net - has been willing to negotiate a 2 state solution in the past. Solutions that "Palestine" refused. Which is why we are in the situation we are in today. Because one side has refused all attempts.

Remember... hamAss'oles were founded with a charter that denies Israel's right to exist and has been designated a terrorist organization by... well... the entire world. Oh, they are in charge of Gaza.

And just FYI... your biased article? laughable. Try something less blantatly biased.

https://www.npr.org/2023/11/19/1213797712/israels-lack-of-a-...

"In a 2022 interview, Netanyahu admitted he was offering Palestinians something far short of political equality. "I don't hide that for a minute. I say it openly," he said. Palestinians are just as open that they aren't interested."

Both sides have to be willing to negotiate... and it's clear that Net has to keep the security of Israel in mind and it's also clear that Palestine isn't interested in solutions. remember - not my words. Clear history.

Also in article: Israel has been working on peace in the region without "Palestine". Was working towards peace with surrounding nations. Also was trying to bring "Palestine" prosperity and it was looking good until Oct 7th when terrorists do what terrorists do.

Now we see the consequences. Do terrorist things and get responses.

"vast numbers" if Israel wanted to kill everyone? They're doing a piss poor job of it. The number of bombs they've dropped vs kill counts are less than 1 death per bomb and they could EASILY do a "better" job if their goal was to kill all "women, children, cattle, sheep".

"they're fairly open" they also drop leaflets, tell people to leave and have given more warning than any other country would do given a remote bombing campaign.

They give more warning than the terrorists did on Oct 7th.

"on the more racist side" "aNyThInG I DiSaGrEe WiTh Is RaCiSt" /eyeroll

People like you are why the claims of "racism" and "nazi" mean nothing. When everything is LITERALLY racism then nothing is.

You're clearly unable to have a real conversation. Freedom will not happen for Palestinians until terrorists like hamAss'oles are removed.

It is clear what Israel wants - safety from terrorists - and they, unlike "Palestine" have in the past been willing to work towards a 2 state solution. We are in the situation we are currently in because "Palestine" refused previous offers and instead elected terrorists into power. No freedom is possible until those hamAss'ole terrorists are gone.

I love that you call "from the river to the sea" a creative misinterpretation... then push something that's way more of a creative interpretation of "genocide".

Why is "Amalek" a call to genocide (remove the others from our land) but "from the rivers to the sea" (remove the others form our land) isn't?

Trying to take you at face value, I looked into what Amalek is and tried to find something more unbiased than you seem to be.

https://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2009/05/the-s...

"I recently asked one of his advisers to gauge for me the depth of Mr. Netanyahu’s anxiety about Iran. His answer: “Think Amalek.” “Amalek,” in essence, is Hebrew for “existential threat.” Tradition holds that the Amalekites are the undying enemy of the Jews. They appear in Deuteronomy, attacking the rear columns of the Israelites on their escape from Egypt. The rabbis teach that successive generations of Jews have been forced to confront the Amalekites: Nebuchadnezzar, the Crusaders, Torquemada, Hitler and Stalin are all manifestations of Amalek’s malevolent spirit."

So Netty says that hamAss is an existential threat? no shit. hamAss needs to be removed? Definitely. No peace as long as hamAss exists. Can't have peace with terrorists.

But is Netty saying to remove ALL Palestinians? remember... Net (as well as others) have tried to negotiate peace with "Palestinians" and have been denied over the years (since recreation of Israel). So Israel has been willing to negotiate while "Palestine" has only been open to solutions that are "from the river to the sea" (read: Genocide).

Infitada and Sea comments are absolutely, unequivocally and undeniably calls to remove Jews from the area.

I love the parallels from 2009 to today... the "overreaction" (read: disproportionate reaction by Israel to a terrorist action of oct 7th) in response to an "existential threat" caused by terrorists killing innocents, hiding like cowards and using human shields.

But I digress. Don't be expected to be taken seriously in your attack on "genocidal" Israel while downplaying and ignoring genocidal hamAss. The war sucks but was started by terrorists and Israel has the right to defend itself from existential threats. No peace as long as hamAss exists.

"creatively misinterpreted"

It's not a misinterpretation to take the meaning of the phrase as it's stated and understood.

That's like saying "blood and soil" doesn't mean what it means. Or Intifada. "Oh don't be silly... they don't REALLY mean that."

They absolutely mean it.

You're being disingenuous to deny the commonly understood meaning of a clearly genocidal phrase while defending it.

Then you complain of others being "genocidal/racist". classic.

"this doesn't scale" Yet it did fine for years before removing sane options.

Drunk driving was one of many examples and one of many reasons people die driving. Did you not notice I also mentioned teen drivers (inexperienced drivers). And the full numbers of people killed by drivers - NOT just drunk drivers?

"if your thing makes a mistake it shouldn't be on the road" yet the roads are full of people that make mistakes. (Hint: thousands of them die every year learning. See above about kids dying each yar).

So you'll focus on one of many reasons to sidestep the question (bias of some sort?) so I'll say it again:

At some point computers will be smart enough, fast enough and safe enough to do a better job at driving than people. Mistakes will be made but - like drunk drivers - humans make mistakes too. So if we can move to a safer way... why wouldn't we? Why are you willing to sacrifice thousands of kids lives if we can eventually progress to a better and safer option?

"faulty software" compared to the human factor?

that's like asking "do you trust a spreadsheet where the math is done by a computer and not verified by a human".

At some point in history... the answer would be "no way I'd trust numbers not checked by a human".

Today? It's easy to say we can trust software produced numbers.

The question becomes what is that cross over point?

Are you saying you don't think we'll get to a point where computers drive better than humans? I think we're closer to that point than you think and with defensive programming we can do so safely.

The problem I have with that argument is what's the comparison to, say, drunk driving or impaired driving?

While a car "dragging" someone can be traumatic and horrible in it's own right... objectively, if we could get rid of thousands of deaths a year in exchange for fewer "mishaps"?

In 2021 2,116 people age 15-20 died in car crashes. 13,384 people for DUI related deaths in 2021. 42,939 car related deaths.

If we could exchange 42k deaths for 1,000? wouldn't that be worth the tradeoff?

Basically the trolly problem where you have to choose between letting a train go forward and kill 5 people or hitting a button to change tracks and kill 1.

If we can get into the "9's" in accuracy and trust bypassing humans... why wouldn't we?

Eh... the issue I have with that is a few dozen communities run on Patreon or what have you won't offset the gorillas in the room (Youtube, TikTok, discord, etc).

I think "we have no clue what's going on online" is never been more true as actions like cancel culture have moved huge swaths of people off of the big guys and created other areas like Rumble - and the smaller alternatives. but to think that these smaller more diverse cultures aren't being commercialized and monetized - except for a few rare cases - just seems, to me, silly.

just my opinion mind you.