Bottom Text
i don't get angry at things that don't affect me lol
i do worry for steam's future, it's only this good because "Lord Gaben" has made many great decisions, it may not be a democracy but a good "dictator" is often more effective than a democracy. But what happens if/when Steam goes to shit for whatever reason? the internet will implode
tbf it could, last act of desperation followed by a full emotional breakdown
not to mention steam's:
screenshot manager
community card trading
friends & chat
easy to join small muliplayer (friends can just send you a button that launches the game and joins them instantly)
highly customisable profiles
tools & soundtracks
achievemnts
and so much more that can be simply small little fun
yeah but the thing is, Steam isn't even trying to be a monopoly, all of Steam's competitors just seem to have a hobby of shooting their own foot, repeatedly. Steam is trying to make the gaming experience easier and more fun, and excelling at it!
unlike some other platforms, Steam doesn't do exclusive deals, literally the only Steam exclusives are Valve's own games, everything else is up to be decided by devs
chances are they'd scam children if they had any money. Scum like that target easy victims
i have difficult & long unique passwords for each of the important things (emails, bank, any official gov or edu sites etc.) that i keep on a piece of paper in my notebook (with a few backup copies). And i also have 3 degrees of difficulty for my other passwords that i use like this: easy "i could not care less if this account got hacked, in fact i know this password has been leaked in plain text before so whatever", medium "i'd kinda suck if this got hacked but ultimately it'd not cause major issues", hard "i do not want this to be hacked"
good name for it indeed! The Good Place is a fantastic show
the other person's reply is good so i won't repeat their points,
but i also wanted to address the "romanticisation" of the "ol' days". Because i did not intend to do that, what i was trying to portray was that it was simpler in the context of the supply chain of your food and belongings. You knew exactly where all your things came from, and the process of creation and aquisition of goods was mostly contained within your village and the village nearby, with the occasional traveller looking to trade
ah, no i'd rather not be written off as mentally unstable when people read that i in fact looped a 1min 30s track for many, many hours :)
that phrase doesn't really attempt to tackle the general idea of consumption, just the one under capitalism.
It's a response to the phenomenon where seemingly no matter what you buy, no matter where you buy it, somewhere along the supply chain someone got hurt or got taken advantage of, and the environment was most likely hurt as well.
Ethical people (ignoring the definition of what that means as i'm not really feeling like writing an essay) usually want to avoid any products that cause someone or something to be harmed during production. But under capitalism that'd mean never buying technology again and having to quit society as having a smartphone is mandatory nowadays, though you'd probably starve first if your best friend isn't a 100% eco friendly farmer (and even then that farmer probably uses a combine which is made out of quite a few parts, production of at least one or two definitely involved some form of abuse)
So the slogan "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism" highlights the fact it's not an individual's fault, and the invidivual is not to blame, when they buy something that unknowingly (or knowingly but out of necessity) brought harm to the people or the environment involved in making the thing.
In the olden days you could feasibly survive by being a farmer who kills maybe a couple of his stock a year for meat. You knew exactly where your patatos came from (your field), you knew exactly where your clothes came from (your best friend is the town seamstress), you knew exactly where you furniture is from (the lumberjack who gets wood for the carpenter is your brother).
But then things got more complicated, and capitalism encourages cutting ethical corners in favour of profit
there is no ethical consumption under capitalism
control shift T reopens your last closed browser tab/window, it can be spammed
middle clicking a link opens it in a new tab (works even on steam! great for comparing games or continual browsing without resetting your scrolling progress during sales)
it's a banana, probably a nostalgia joke for the times when redditors often included a "banana for scale" in the photos they posted
eh, well my answer is going to be most likely unsatisfying because - that just depends on how you count it, there's quite a few different IQ tests and some of them use slightly different methods of calculating the scores
practically though? a person so disabled they can barely figure out the most basic puzzles that scores below ~20 would probably have significantly lower survival chances basically anywhere, but especially in developing countries where they're less likely to get help
yes, just as IQ tells you close to nothing about the properties of human intelligence! (only how good you are at taking IQ tests).
Consider this - what does being smart even mean? Does it mean you're able to solve logic puzzles fast? Does it mean having a good memory? Does it mean being able to make good decisions? maybe it means being able to resolve interpersonal conflicts? or maybe being able to cook something amazing from scratch without a recepie?
IQ seems to be seen as some vague concept of the computational power of the brain, but only when it comes to logic puzzles and remembering things. What if someone's brain's computational power instead favours considering the interactions of various flavours to create outstanding dishes? or moving their body to dance the most mesmerising dances?
imagine you're a scientist though! a man of science, logic and reason, living roughly at the same time IQ was standardised. And you are smart, all your friends think you're smart - so you set the scale of the entirety of human intelligence to be measured with logic puzzles. Nothing else. All the other stuff is just some talent someone has...
but what if someone is talented at solving IQ tests? Does that mean they're smart? if there is no discernible difference between someone who's talented at solving logic puzzles, and someone who an IQ tests deems to be intelligent, does that mean only those who enjoy logic puzzles, and therefore have gotten a lot of practice in solving them, are smart?
another question - is it "cheating" if somebody trains for their IQ test? if someone trains their mind specifically to be better at them - will that person become more intelligent, or just more skilled at filling out IQ tests well? how can you spot a "cheater" like that?
where even is intelligence in the brain? where does it come from? your genetics? your upbringing? your environment? everything at once?
how do you measure something you can barely define? and why with logic puzzles? why not an interpretative dance to the sounds of noise jazz? why not the baking of a pavlova cake? or maybe a rap battle?
apologies for the long rant. IQ is not a scientific measurement, it's a measurement of how likely you're to do well on logic puzzles. and whoever popularised it and made it seem like the way to prove you're better than others infuriates me. the above are my personal, more or less subjective, issues with the idea of IQ, i do recommend this video essay to understand how deeply flawed even the history of IQ is. There's piles and piles of arguments against IQ, and very few in favour
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-even-possible-for-a-human-to-have-an-IQ-of-200?top_ans=179514973
read the second answer to that particular quora question, i believe it outlays what the other guy and i mean pretty clearly
the people we oppose have been widening the wealth gap, shrinking the middle class, and pushing more people into poverty. And in America - not having enough money means you, or your loved one, dies.
That particular dragon was in charge of denying as many insurance claims as possible without getting anyone too ravenous for his blood. He was playing a game with people's lives, eventually he was bound to lose. His true cause of death was greed.
Unless you're a billionaire who hoards wealth, you're no dragon, and nobody cares about you until you step out of line of being an obedient money cow