Taokan

I believe some of the rich assholes really do see birth rates as a sort of global crisis. Mostly because it poses a threat to their bottom line. Less workers = less labor to exploit, less consumers to buy their shit, pay subscriptions or blast with ads. And a demographic shift where the size of the older generation is greater than the younger generation massively screws up social security systems that depend on taxes from the young to pay the benefits for the old. And, more nefariously - because parents necessarily consume more and become more reliable workers: when you're living paycheck to paycheck you can't afford to quit, take unpaid leave, turn up overtime or go on strike. But perhaps too, some may be experiencing the existential crisis that there is a real, natural limit to the growth of the human race, that we are not god-destined to just expand forever and ever, but rather finite in our place in the cosmos.

To be fair, showing no historical correlation and just assuming the problem or separation started this year because it's specifically indexed to the start of the year, is garbage math. Like, you got the correct answer, but you did the problem completely wrong.

I don't think it needs banned, but I would be completely unfussed if it got banned. And I wholeheartedly support just downvoting the beans out of anything sourced from there in the meantime.

See the problem with this though, is that if everything's just pretend and made up, then I can't get mad about Elon Musk's "Nazi Salute". And yet, there are abundant red flags showing a rise in fascism, that if ignored, may very well permanently alter the world order and our standard of living. In the past 48 hours there was a significant chance the supply of coffee that drives most of my economic output could be disrupted or tariffed.

And, that's because a lot of this comes back to the connotation of the word, "pretend". Replace it with the word, "Idea", and you get sort of the same concept, but suddenly the non-existent thing sounds much more powerful.

Lol. They were trying their damndest to get me and my family to install that. I'm like... there's a bit of a conflict of interest there. I can see some value in having location data of your family, who's driving too fast, if someone's in an accident. I will absolutely not be sharing that data with the company that earns money for its shareholders by outperforming the statistical likelihood of paying me money, by finding every way possible to not pay me money.

On a guy who boldly claimed he could get away with murder, no less.

I could see where it might set a bad precedent. But the week I spent in Vegas, there was a constant sign running an ad that you could bet on the Presidency, and I can't think of a single good argument about how betting on a trial is more dangerous than betting on the office that can undo any federal crime with a pen stroke.

NGL, when I first saw Warner making a public fuss over this, I had a bit of a reaction. Like, no one comes after my boy steam, I like my games and I like my platform. And maybe it's because I don't engage in many public multiplayer games these days, but I just haven't really come across this extremist content frequently enough to feel Congress needs to get involved.

But...

I can see from the comments, my anecdotal experiences aren't the whole picture. And I do get that sometimes in an otherwise free market, regulation is necessary to prevent a situation where a company does the right thing and then suffers financially from the backlash/boycott that ensues. Better to let the government be the ones to take the heat by those that get upset by the moderation.

But I also kind of agree with the sentiment, Congress needs to clean up its own hate speech and ethics, before further legislating what everyone else should be doing.

Restaurant guy: one of your employees probably taking a little smoke break.

The most complex object in the universe ... according to the brain.

Judging by the stock price decline that didn't start last week, but rather has been ongoing for ~~months~~years, you're spot on. This is exactly what the market was expecting.

DEI has at least some roots in holding a positive connotation, a lot of companies that value an image/brand of diversity will have a DEI department/team. It's not just an acronym they made up, though it's definitely been co-opted by reactionaries as a way to describe someone they feel only got the job/promotion/attention because of a compulsion to raise up minority voices (a "DEI" hire is their way of saying the person wasn't qualified for the job, but got it because they were black/a woman".

My initial take on the rant was to simply ignore it, but now I'm wondering if there's maybe something to the idea that specifically in the shooter genre, the market is different enough that I don't really know the space. Like BG3 was about as DEI a game as you could get, and no one's arguing that game's success. But I do know a couple conservatives that were specifically kind of turned off by games like cyberpunk and BG3. Apparently they couldn't handle tasteful sidedick. Maybe for a shooter to be successful it's got to coddle what the gun enthusiast crowd is demanding? I don't know. Despite their popularity, I just don't play that many shooters.