Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)T
Posts
11
Comments
1,075
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • No, Nintendo does this kind of thing every so often, where they'll just make an incremental upgrade to an existing console, rather than build a completely new one. The DSi wasn't a massive step up from the DS Lite, which itself wasn't that major of a step up from the DS, and the GBA SP wasn't a huge step up from the GBA.

    At most, they just have a minor additional gimmick, but everything else more or less remains the same. Switch 2's gimmick is allegedly letting you use the joycons like computer mice.

  • Same for the other kinds of stool. More than a few phlebotomists would be quite concerned about sitting on a stool and having it start bleeding under them, or seeing stools in a blood sample.

  • I think part of it is also that Star Trek is hampered by its own branding. No network would want to risk their cash cow by having them be controversial, so they'll keep it safe.

    I have quite a hard time envisioning any new Star Trek nearly getting the show taken off of the air by pushing boundaries like the original Star Trek did.

  • Normally, it would be the electoral system that would act as the check. But otherwise, it doesn't put any other limits based on political belief and affiliation (other than having allegiances to other political powers). If the majority wanted to elect someone who wishes to abolish the democratic election system, then that is what they will get.

    That's possibly for the better. Being able to bar given political alignments or affiliation from office would either need to be so specific so as to be useless (a modern nazi typically has little directly to do with the original), or be broad enough that it'd be a dangerous thing, since it could be used in either direction.

  • It shouldn't be, but it is. 20 years ago, in the far-off year of 2005, a lot of tech companies more or less followed the same path, where it took decades for them to actually be profitable, if they were at all.

    YouTube ran at a deficit for something close to 15 years. AI companies are likely following this trend, and running mostly on investment money, rather than being self-sufficient.