IHeartBadCode

What's wild is that one of the people who write anti-cheat software was saying they needed to get their shit working on Linux like yesterday.

So I mean, it crazy that Windows is literally having some folks scramble on how to get their shit working on Steam/Linux.

Yeah, I think that's the bigger issue here. These devices pay their way by collecting data to sell off. What this "overhual" is indicating is that they haven't quite figured out how to make these devices not only pay for themselves, but also, generate a net background profit for the company.

The only thing I'm reading from this story is that Amazon is just aiming for more dollar signs from Alexia. I'm going tell you in the day and age of Siri and Whatever Google's thing is, this is going to backfire massively on Amazon. This will likely collapse whatever paltry Alexia that's out there. And I have a good feeling they'll look at this collapse as "well the technology just isn't a good money maker." No you idiots, it's not a mass profit driver. I get how something not drawing double digit percentage gains is a mystery to you all, but just because you cannot buy your fifteenth yacht from it, doesn't mean that the technology is a failure.

But it's whatever, Amazon's ship to wreck.

Open the door HAL

Oh don't even get me started. Hall effect has been known since 1879, those JoyCons didn't use it because it was cheaper to use shitty graphite. They literally went the cheap ass route because they didn't even care.

“Nintendo sues” oh look it’s a day that ends in Y. The only person Nintendo isn’t dead set on suing is Nintendo.

Here’s you 937th remake of Super Mario Bros 2 that you can only rent, have a nice day.

And our online service is absolute trash but you’ll pay anyway to have a legal emulator until we also discontinue that for Super other garbage online service!

Yes I saw some shit the other day about, “such and such reporting that sales are drastically down since blah blah blah. Where did it all go wrong?”

Or “Gen whatever is choosing to part ways with blah blah blah. Here’s our guesses as to why!”

And it’s just, NOBODY HAS FUCKING MONEY!!! That’s it. That’s all it is. There’s no preference. There’s no secret wokeness. There’s no underlying meaning. We are all just fucking broke!

They took all the money, they refuse to give it back in wages, they jacked up the price, and we are tapping out. HOW THE FUCK IS THIS STILL A GODDAMN MYSTERY?!?!?!

The only way someone can still be confused about what’s going on is if they’re on purpose being ignorant about it because, “mah market indicators!”

We are all broke. That’s it, that’s the answer. Media needs to stop with the bullshit. The headline every day needs to be “The world is on fire by rich asshats and the rest of us are too fucking broke to do anything. We are all going to die painfully because of those rich asshats.” And that should be all that’s on the news every hour on the hour. The end.

I just want to note here for those about to journey into this conversation, there's a major hiccup that didn't exist before. The Supreme Court placed an new expansive interpretation of the Second Amendment in the 2008 Heller case. This has significantly altered how the second amendment is read in the United States. So what may seem like "brain dead easy" things to do, likely cannot be done as they would be unconstitutional.

I say this because the question posed simply indicates "Present + Congress" which seems to imply, "which laws would you pass to fix gun control issues" and post-2008 that is no longer a thing. Any discussion needs to include at this point a conversation about the Supreme Court, the new understanding of the 2nd Amendment, and that the Justices currently on the bench will likely enforce their new expansive interpretation for their term on the court (which is a lifetime appointment).

We are now at a point that we cannot fix this issue without a Constitutional Amendment, a reorganization of the Supreme Court (packing, impeachment, etc), an incredibly careful tip-toe around this new understanding of the second amendment, and/or talking about the underlying issues that surround gun reform (economic and societal issues).

And we are seeing the consequences of Heller in things like 2022 Bruen which SCOTUS indicated that a "historic standard" should be applied to new gun regulation. This has lead to US v Rahimi where the Court of Appeals for 5th Circuit has removed the Federal protection that folks charged with domestic violence can still obtain a gun as "domestic violence" had no historical standard on which to base on. Which is an absolute astonishing level of logic there.

We are no longer at a phase where legislation alone along the strict lines of "just gun reform", this new understanding of the second amendment has forever (or at least as long as those Justices sit the bench) altered how we can approach this issue. We cannot just simply say, "let us figure out ways to regulate gun ownership in itself" that is no longer allowed. We can approach the issue indirectly: how do we increase the cost of Interstate gun ownership, how do we regulate the the dissemination of ammunition, how do we address the various issues that draw people into violent crime, how do we address the issue of school shootings at an societal level. But we have been cut off from direct approaches that regulate guns themselves except in the most extreme cases and even then, advocates are continually being handed new tools by the Supreme Court to bring about new challenges for those.

Any meaningful debate about gun control needs to include the Supreme Court. Because given the current Court's propensity to expand gun rights and the understanding of the second amendment, any law that might get introduced to fix the issue today, could and very likely would be overturned by the court. This has become a new chess piece in this game to be considered since 2008, prior yes this could have been a Congress and President issue alone, but post-2008, the Courts must be considered in the discussion. The Supreme Court too strongly embraces the new understanding of the second amendment to let any direct law be allowed to go unchallenged.

QA for a 3PL. Apparently QA didn't prior to my arrival try things like entering words in zipcode entry boxes, typing 65537 letters into an address field, or holding the shift key when selecting which State to ship to.

I made a lot of, well not what I would call enemies but I wasn't exactly friends with any of the developers.

I’m highly doubtful that a second Civil War would be like the first. I’m more of the opinion that we’d see something along the lines of the Troubles in Ireland.

Maintaining a fighting force requires a ton of money and the loss of international markets in the Civil War hurt the Confederacy greatly. Inflation in the Confederacy shot through the roof. Paired with the Union’s successful blockade, the Union securing most rivers, and the Union pretty much destroying every bit of infrastructure in the Confederate States, the Confederacy had massive economic woes that plagued morale.

I’m really doubtful that any State wanting to secede wants to lose access to the US dollar as it would wreck their economy. I just don’t see it being the way the Civil War was fought as it would almost guarantee a repeat.

Wars are fought along a lot more lines than just the ones where bullets matter.

The used razor blades were arming the rats who were also in the wall.

Interesting; you have to dig past the usual misandry sites to find an impartial source but Pew research found 53% of stem graduates female in 2018 and rising

I mean, at this point you're just cherry picking and not doing all that well with it. As indicated from, again YOUR source.

The gender dynamics in STEM degree attainment mirror many of those seen across STEM job clusters. For instance, women earned 85% of the bachelor’s degrees in health-related fields, but just 22% in engineering and 19% in computer science

That lines up with the whole thing I had mentioned here. You keep wishing otherwise, but you also keep providing evidence to the contrary.

So I mean at some point I guess you'll read your own sources OR you won't. But the sources you keep providing agree with the original statement that women are under represented in traditional STEM studies. So I mean you square that with yourself however you want.

Nah you’re still being disingenuous. The stats don’t lie - even the stats you provided

I mean you provided those last stats I just gave. That's literally taken from your link.

I would have thought you’d be happy to see stem taken over by women

I think you're conflating how I feel to facts. Fact is the 38.6% figure I quoted from your article. How I feel about it or the price of gasoline is notwithstanding.