hoodatninja @ hoodatninja @kbin.social

Former landed gentry

---

Read more

Posts

0

Comments

490

Joined

2 yr. ago

That isn’t a middle ground. You’re just saying the state can publish a recommendation, which it always has been able to. That’s absolutely in the “unregulated” / “no safety nets” camp. It’s caveat emptor as a status quo and takes us back to the gilded age.

To put it another way: The middle ground between “the state has no authority here” and “the state can regulate away a product” isn’t “the state can suggest we don’t buy it.” It still puts the burden on the consumer in an unreasonable way. We can’t assess literally everything we consume. If I go to a grocery store and buy apples, I can reasonably assume they won’t poison me. Without basic regulations this is not possible. You can’t feed 8 billion people without some rules.

Let me be clear, I agree with the EFF on this particular issue. ISP’s should not regulate speech and what sites I browse. But it’s not the same as having the FDA. For starters, ISP’s are private corporations.

It takes me several dozen hours every 6-12mo to keep up with the arms race that is privacy. I can’t imagine what it’s like for people who are less technically inclined. It must be a completely impenetrable problem.

4 years ago everybody told me to get on Brave. Look what happened lol

Arguably the most well known VPN is Nord. Yet you can find dozens of posts on HackerNews and other sites saying not to use it.

It’s one thing to diagnose and try to solve the problem, but then you need a bunch of technical knowledge and knowledge of where to find good answers to even know what solutions are viable or are just a wolf in sheep’s clothing. It’s a total minefield sometimes, it’s hard to not simply land with someone else who wants to take all your data and strip away your privacy.

The idea sounds nice in theory, but there is a reason people bring their car to a shop instead of changing their own oil. There are a lot of things we could/should take responsibility for directly but they are far too numerous for us to take responsibility for everyone of them. Sometimes we just have to place trust in groups we loosely vetted (if at all) and hope for the best. We all do it every day in all sorts of capacities.

To put it another way: do you think we should have the FDA? Or do you think everybody should have to test everything they eat and put on their skin?

This is true lol

Exactly the kind of stuff I was looking for. Thank you.

Appreciate it!

Quality of posts will go up too. There’s a direct correlation with (worse) quality and image posts.

Ha it’s all good. Jokes aside can you break it down for me? Very curious now

Ngl I’m pretty terminally online and spend an unhealthy amount of time reading about politics (both fringe and otherwise) but I have almost no clue what your comment is saying lol

Don't sweat it, you just unfortunately tripped up on a VERY charged word lol. Again, your advice is good! Getting the body moving and cardiovascular/pulmonary systems cranking is good for waking up and feeling energized. Showers just feel damn good too.

I don’t think I’ve ever heard someone describe taking a shower as “removing impurities” but hey if that’s your intended meaning then cool!

For your future reference, “impurities” is kind of a catchall, meaningless term that health quacks throw around. “Do a juice cleanse, it’ll remove your impurities and toxins.”

There’s nothing to evaluate. Megathreads were designed to kill topics on Reddit (unless it was a MAJOR, developing, current event) and they do the same here. You’re the first person to comment at all in this thread in over a month.

I like the suggestion overall because it actually is pretty medically sound, but “impurities“ is just a meaningless term. You have a liver/kidney/etc. to get unwanted things out of your body. Diets and sweating doesn’t “remove” toxins or impurities or whatever buzzword is bouncing around the crunchy world .

Yeah but 360/PS3 were barely pulling 720p @30fps so it wasn’t as stark. Lots of games couldn’t even 720p.

It wasn’t just marketing fail. They failed to get developers on board and failed to player test adequately, a mistake that Nintendo consistently makes in cycles. N64 and Gamecube should’ve taught them but finally it seems with Switch they’ve gotten the message.

The Wii-U is fine but severely underpowered and the tablet was very limited in range and capability. I have one and enjoy it but it simply wasn’t impressive from a hardware standpoint and it wasn’t clear what you were supposed to do with it as an end user. Sony & Microsoft also ironed out their online gaming experience while Nintendo continue to flounder. That was a really important market in the 2010s and they completely failed to capture any of it.

The PS4/Xbox one just blew it out of the water performance wise. The tech gap was too wide (the CPU was a serious bottleneck) and it was a pain to develop for them when you could just develop for PC and/or PS4 and/or Xbox.

I would be very curious to compare games sold per console (preferably year by year). I imagine the Wii had a big drop off and maybe even sold fewer games per console than 360/PS3. If for no other reason than it had a library half the size of them. Both consoles had over 2000 games IIRC and Wii had just over 1000.

It's just so needlessly hostile and shitty, right?

So much garbage released on Wii. Really harkened back Nintendo’s roots lol. I love the Wii and it has a lot of great releases but it really felt like 30% of the catalog was shovelware.