Right? Shortsightedness is a problem everywhere. And their calculations are not gonna work out for them. Sure, raise the price of goods and services today, who's gonna buy them if no one has any money cause they're syphoning off and propelling us to the bottom. I'm convinced the ultra wealthy stopped mentally growing at age 7-10.
Take that Ken Griffith guy, the one who had to get bailed out by other ultra wealthy a-holes in 2020 during the GameStop meme-time. He just spent like $44 million on a stegosaurus skeleton that the company was going to try to sell for like $3-$7 million. Dudes atrocious with money and predictions it seems. He's like a wealthier Tim Poole.
Accelerationists gotta accelerate, I guess. For the longest time it baffled me as to why anyone with intelligence would knowing act to destroy the planet and, with it, society. Then I learned about this shit called accelerationism and it all starts to make sense.
We ARE in a hostage situation like someone commented, except we're on a bus, speeding toward a cliff, and the rich elite refuse to take their foot off the pedal. They think they're going to come out of societal collapse alive and poised to shape whatever comes next however they want. It's literally the game of Monopoly with that fucking speed die version...
Let's say you were doing shady, illegal shit for some mob boss-wannabe. You know a lot of shit. Have emails, phone messages, recorded meetings, and one day you're picked up on charges for something you did for the boss.
You have two choices, go to jail for 10-15 years or take a plea deal where you give up all evidence on the boss and in return are given only probation. You'd really give up a portion of your life in federal prison for that guy?
That's the situation that this kind of shit is used for. He didn't get this light sentence for nothing. Most of these people are spineless tools that were used and thrown under the bus by someone higher on the chain than themselves.
My dude(ette), there are always bigger fish and the biggest, slimiest one keeps slipping out of the jumpsuit to match the color of his aging meat suit. This guy likely has a lot of the stuff the prosecution wants.
Real question. If the vice presidential duty is to ceremoniously sign off on delegate votes, how will that work if Kamala is the VP, but also on the ticket? I could see these MAGA nuts using that to drum up support for a stolen election, they tried it when Pence was VP, and he wasn't an electee.
That's crazy! When I was in the guard, we had E-7+ that would squat their position just to retire as that rank. I know he had started his family around then, but wow that's almost unheard of.
That dude is fucking dedicated to his family. That, right there, should be enough to prove he's genuine and not just blowing smoke. To give up that pension to dedicate time and safety for family is aspiring! This is what a true Chad looks like.
That's the same for any digital platform, though. Literally, any gaming store except for GOG won't let you take your library with you. You don't own the game as far as any of them are concerned. You're claiming Steam is some kind of monster because their platform for games you don't own is better than other platforms for games you don't own. Because their platform doesn't sucks, it earns them a lot of business. That's it. That's the magic sauce.
With options, if Stream sucked, people would go elsewhere.
If Steam had anything resembling a monopoly they'd do everything they could to remove platforms offering the same games. The number of platforms has only expanded since they started.
If Stream was a monopoly, they'd not only undercut others, they'd pay for exclusivity rights. Steam let's developers sell their own keys from anywhere the developer wants, while taking no cut when that happens, even though Steam still has to front the bandwidth and storage for the game to be played.
If Steam was a monopoly, they'd buy up smaller firms, buy businesses with similar, but competing services, or take another company's product, reverse engineer it, and make their own undercutting the original. They've done the opposite at every turn.
You really don't understand monopolistic tactics. You're not going to understand it, either, since you've continues to conflate good business decisions that earn trust and adoption with anti-consumer practices. Steam makes good business decisions, listens to their customers and developers about ways to make the service or products better, and has more business because of it. They have a better product without stooping to the air a in lot of current businesses are pulling.
That's it. 70% market dominance doesn't fucking matter. They could have 90% and it still wouldn't be a monopoly with their current strategy. Other businesses need to suck less.
You're either a troll, extremely young, naive, and/or uneducated if you think my comment above is in defense of billionaires. I literally have comments in my history to the absolute opposite. What I'm "defending" is the definition of a monopoly when it comes to business practices; of which Valve has exuded none of the behavior of.
You think any business doing well, providing quality goods and services, not being anti-consumer, and being the most trusted platform for gaming as a result is the definition of a monopoly. Again, you use fallacy to try and argue a point.
Wait... Are you that dickhead from Epic who pays for exclusivity rights, steaks user data from Steam files, or something? I could see that guy being pissed at Steam for seemingly no reason.
one such comment, if I recall, is about how much I hated Steam when it first came out for killing LAN parties by locking down CD keys.
You really gotta aim your sights higher if that's the criteria you're using for a "monopoly". Valve is a private company, that sells games and other "wants", not "needs". If people can't afford games, without losing their house or struggling to eat, I don't think that's a company's fault.
If Valve was even close to using anti-competitive methods to maintain market dominance, you'd be correct. However, a company having superior quality products and making good business decisions is not a basis or definition of a monopoly. They just make good decisions and provide quality products that people want and enjoy.
Instead of using strawman and false equivalency fallacies, try taking a look at what really constitutes anti-competitive practices.
Ænima @ mjhelto @lemm.ee Posts 1Comments 760Joined 2 yr. ago
I thought Niagra's premium was a monthly or yearly subscription.