matlag

Their intent was to block third party app, not GOS specifically. GOS not working is a side effect.

Why blocking third party? As said below: to force the use of privacy invasive apps, and collect more data.

Now they will change course only if they suffer from a sufficient backlash. And that needs to be painful enough to deter other car makers from doing the same.

Sounds like the upcoming Slate. But it's more of a pick-up platfom. I hope they keep going and extend their product line.

Maybe I wasn't clear, but my point was these requirements are indeed driven by the studios and the GPU makers.

These are marketing decisions, because the day it stops (imagine studio claiming "we're good enough, no more need to improve graphics!" then GPU last 10 years or more before needing replacement (I write a conservative 10, as they are heavily stressed while in use, but a computer can last longer than that).

Similarly, if graphics stop improving, studios will have a much harder time coming up with new games players want to buy. They will need to actually innovate in games mechanisms or find other added value features, or accept that the market will significantly decrease as new shiny graphics on the same game will no longer work.

So game advertisements are all about blasting you with spectacular graphics and animations.

After 9/11, many Americans supported the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, and were making jokes about nuking them (a country that had nothing to do with the attack, by the way).
So were Americans fair targets?

Israelis are fed the with continuous far-right BS propaganda. I bet they believe Lebanese pray for their annihilation. This is yet another proof that controlling media work, and therefore democracies cannot function if media are not independent. No country, no people is safe for that.

The issue is not that we have deranged human beings. As societies, we can handle these cases.

The issue is we keep promoting them: Minister in Israel, President in the US, billionaires, trillionaire, …

Ok, I'm not a gamer, and I have a real honest question: we had fun with gamesetsin the 90's. We had LAN games in the 2000's, and over Internet quickly after. People were spending hours, days playing. Each new GPU was so much better, sharper pictures, "so realistic", etc.

Are you genuinely having more fun now than with good games from 10years ago? Even 15years ago??

Because it looks like this whole requirements thing is pure marketing, and studios needing to keep selling: "Look, shinier graphics that will make the previous generation of games you loved and found incredibly sharp and detailed when theé came out look mild and of bad quality now!"

There was pretty much nowhere else he would have been safe from being extradited to the US, if not immediately, then as a political bargain.

You're both correct. There was a lot of changes after him thanks to him. But majority of people still don't give a shit.

Then they reach the ocean where they account for 0.2% (-ish?) of the plastic out there, 50% of the plastic in the ocean is fishing equipment (nets, etc.) for which we did… absolutely nothing.

And no, I'm not advocating in favor of plastic straws. I wish the rules worldwide would have been to make cups and straws mandatory complementary fees. Everyone would bring their own re-usable cups. Then onto disposable cutlery, etc. We managed to ban plastic bags at supermarkets, sure we could get a habit of carrying cups.

Because at the end, the better solution is not to recycle wastes, it's to stop producing them.

It's rationale: how would anyone need unemployment benefit with the best economy the ~~USA~~, the ~~world~~, sorry: the Universe have seen since ~~the US exist~~ the creation of Earth by God??

Our economy is not in free fall right now. Everything we talk about here is not for short term. So the question is what do we want our economy to be in the coming years. Answer: great after 10 years, and then until 20 years from now, as we rip the money from oil and gas. But at the same time, declining until…

Free fall as the cost of climate disaster will not only nullify but then dig into the budgets until we're overwhelmed. Floods, fires, crop failures. Not only is the plan to be totally unprepared, but renouncing climate targets mean we'll actively contributing to make the situation worse. And all of this is written already. The only way to prevent it would be to abruptly stop all fossil consumption tomorrow morning, and yes, on that we agree: it would be a disaster. We're not talking hypothetical situations. We're deciding today how bad it's going to be, from very bad to absolute disaster. Very bad is we make a very very hard transition right fucking now.
But we decided it's more pragmatic to bet on future absolute disaster…

But worse even for us: emergent countries are transitioning faster than expected. So it's possible than 10 years from now, when we built pipelines, the world's demands will be lower than planned, and we will be the idiots who wasted billions in the fossil industry and are now helpless in front of climate change driven disasters while the rest of the world, regardless how prepared they will be, will struggle just the same, because there is a limit to how much you can be prepared: you can prepare for very bad. You can't be prepared for absolute disaster.

Every time the same argument. "Let's keep our unsustainable society without any drastic change until the collapse becomes inevitable and it's too late to prepare for it" is such a pragmatic approach.