Love the historical gameplay. But I cannot stand being interrupted by the modern day parts. Even if they are small. They feel so disrespectful with my time that I've always been unable to play those games. I forced my way through AC2 but I have never replayed it, despite loving the actual gameplay, just for the modern day boredom.
In my country we had always had massive unemployment rates.
People just live with family and keep studying until they can land a job. Plenty of people here hasn't got a job until their thirties, and rarely in the field the initially thought they'd be working.
It's shit living with your parents until you are 35, but it has been the deal here until very recently.
In my experience it has always had an horrible experience.
Also pc gaming has always been a thing.
It's just that consoles have been harder to justify not only because pc gaming have gotten better. But because consoles have gotten worse. It's no longer plug and play, now you have to do the same steps of installing, downloading things, checking if your version of the console can run that game... At that point big consoles are harder and harder to justify.
Sony will go behind of they don't do some changes. Xbox fell sooner because they had a thinner base. But sony is not out of danger.
Nintendo is probably fine as they rotated to handhelds, which are a different niche than normal pcs. And because they hold massive exclusive IPs.
Anyway, just for educational purposes. Bookstores usually not just buy books in bulk and hope not to go bankrupt for a bad purchase. They do not take all the risk. When books are bought by a bookstore contracts are made, usually the store pay the publisher after a set amount of time, and if books are not sold, they return the books to the publisher. Contract between publisher and author tend to imply a percentage of sells, so if that books were not sold author won't see the money either.
In this case if books are burn by a mob, the bookstore might just not be able to pay the publisher, so the publisher won't be able to pay the author.
Not to even begin with editions and batches. A bookstore won't buy all the books they pretend to sell on a single batch, they will be buying by batches. If at some point they get raided they just will stop trying to buy more batches. Same fron publisher perspective with editions. They will print out more editions depending on the sales. If a book is not being sold, because it's being burned, they won't print more editions. No more editions = no money to author either.
If the government want to kill people in a country where they can get away with it they'll just send armed men to shoot them.
Poisoning water supply is something the joker would do in a comic book, but on reality it won't make a lot of sense for any big city. Going there and shooting people is probably much more effective, less expensive and let you with a not-poisoned city to settle with your own people.
In my life experience the only way to test the reliability of a news source is to actually live some events and see how they are reported by different media.
I have no such experience with al Jazeera, so I couldn't tell you reliably if they are or not reliable. Best advice with media is, unless you are certain they are reliable, treat them as unreliable.
Google CO2 emissions were 1.5 MTo in 2010. By 2018 they were 13 MTo. In 2023 they were 14 MTo.
I'm sorry but there's more to the story that what's being told in the article. For starters any dataset that takes 2019/2020 as their base line is skewed, we all know what happened that year.
And, on the other hand, Google emissions increased by almost a 1000% in ten years before AI.
Truth is more important than that agenda or the dogma. That article does the wild assumption that a big share of the increase in electricity usage is because AI. It may be, or it may not be, but the article presents zero evidences for that claim. And data in hand we know that google can use a ton of electricity without AI. So the impact of AI may or may not be as big as portrayed by the article. And it also disregards completely the massive increases in google emissions before 2019.
There must be a limit on how many people earth can house.
Saying "not limit" would be an irrational dogma. Earth have limited resources, people will need some quantity of resources per capita, thus there cannot be infinite people. Simple logic.
Once the existing of a limit is accepted we can and should discuss what number it is.
Thanks to them I'm master spy now.