TheTechnician27

You’re not contradicting anything they said, and you’re not contradicting that Steam is a monopoly.

That tends to happen when you have a monopoly on an industry where you get 30% of the revenue from other people’s hard work.

Name is Andrew Johnson

Somewhere, somehow, I slipped and fell into The Onion.

You reach the right conclusion at first but then fail to realize this wasn’t skipped because they thought it was bullshit – otherwise it would be waived across the board.

Regardless of if they were accidentally correct, this has mens rea written all over it. They wish to normalize blatant corruption, and you’re giving that to them.

Trump is inconsistent with Christian principles in the same way that Jon Brower Minnoch was inconsistent with proper dieting. What the fuck?

So vindicated.

Stop spamming LLM slop, OP.

Get that first week of Macroecon 101 shit out of here before I go into outrage withdrawal.

you dislike clarity

If you can’t read the title in the OP and immediately understand what it means, that says more about your reading comprehension than it does about how much I like clarity.

I agree your title is better – just that the original commenter is being needlessly pedantic instead of meaningfully discussing the article’s subject.

If you want to be needlessly pedantic about a title everyone understood: no, that’s not what the title says. It says two [people are] dead after being found in flooded basements. It does not at any point say when they died – just that they were dead after being found.

More specifically, it does not ever say they were not dead before being found. If I say “Julius Caesar is dead after 9/11”, it’s absolutely true; he was and has been in a state of death following the 9/11 attacks.

If you want to play pedant, don’t assume you’re playing alone.

resist corporate bullshit by spitting in their face.

“Resist corporate bullshit by eschewing the free, non-corporate option – which, because it’s open, gets better the more people use it – in favor of continuing to use the exact same corporate product but with an abstruse, hacky workaround that 0.001% of the userbase will use and will probably be plugged by this time next week. That’ll show those corpo fucks who’s boss. ✊Ⓐ”

Yeah, and it’s worth clarifying when we assign controversial labels to topics that we do so only insofar as reliable sources already consistently do so. Even if it’s an objective statement like “convicted smuggler”, that still needs to be balanced with how much that aspect of the subject’s life is covered by reliable, independent sources compared to the others. This is pretty similar to how we would treat a benign, neutral statement: we wouldn’t write “John Doe is a businessman, politician, and person whose favorite color is orange” absent comparatively lengthy coverage from multiple outlets about Doe’s obsession with the color orange.

I guess they think they’re a Homestuck troll.

Jesus christ, dude, we already do this on food packaging. What’s up your ass? Read two paragraphs into the article:

“They will have to disclose ingredients including milk, eggs, shellfish and tree nuts […]” That’s basically just what we already do on food packaging: list common allergens. Fucking no shit they’re not exhausting every single possible allergy. Again, what problem do you actually have here besides the fact that people with food allergies might have easier lives?

And by the way, the California Prop 65 joke you’re making isn’t indicative of government overreach or myopia; it’s indicative of how extremely present carcinogens are in the products we use. The list of Prop 65 ingredients is very thoroughly vetted, and items are only included when a clear, causal link to cancer can be reliably established.

with less interpretation of social cues and a greater ability to focus.

“ability to focus” is more accurately described as “tendency to focus”. “ability to focus” connotes control over focus, which… from lived experience and what I’ve read, just isn’t generally true. Autistic inertia – the inability to defocus and then focus on a new context – is very real. Autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder not just because of an ignorance of social cues but because of how rigid, inflexible patterns of behavior often interfere with daily life.

and the Supreme Court did nothing because

Because the SCOTUS has no enforcement mechanism for what you described. Even just for Worcester v. Georgia, what is the USMS supposed to do against the state of Georgia without support from the Executive? Jackson literally wrote in 1832: “the decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate.” Jackson did eventually threaten enforcement as part of what became known as the nullification crisis.

But either way, Worcester v. Georgia wasn’t directly about the 1830 Indian Removal Act or 1835’s Treaty of New Echota; it was about the freeing of Worcester etc., which did eventually go through. The Treaty of New Echota should’ve been illegal on the basis of Worcester v. Georgia, but again, the SCOTUS doesn’t just go around enforcing cases it didn’t rule on unless it gets back to their court to rule on that separate case; that’s the Executive’s job.

“The Supreme Court did nothing because they hate Indian Americans” is such unfounded bullshit that you just made up because it sounded right. You can correctly argue all you want that this shows separation of powers is just an illusion because one single person has to agree to enforce laws and can only be removed (theoretically) with a supermajority of Congress if they fail to do so.

Putting aside the fact that a formal concept of an opposition wouldn’t help, because the US has a de facto opposition by nature of having a two-party system: what do you mean, “The PM couldn’t just, you know, make up lies”?

Yes they could. This is obvious if you think about it, but this is provable experimentally; the UK had Boris Johnson for three years who lied all the time. Australia’s Scott Morrison constantly lied about fossil fuels and climate change. Parliamentary democracies aren’t magic.

It’s technically more money upfront, but you’re not just buying the printer itself: you’re also buying the starter ink/toner cartridges that come with the device. The starter toner gives you vastly more pages than the starter ink, and it basically never goes bad. According to Brother, the size of a starter toner cartridge is 1000 A4 pages. According to HP, their Deskjet and Envy starter cartridges print about 150 and 250 pages, respectively.

So that higher upfront cost doesn’t just go into a better, more efficient machine; it also goes into quadruple the starting pages or more. There are people who could seriously never print more than 1000 pages, whereas the starter for a Deskjet is so small that you practically ought to buy a spare cartridge alongside the printer for when it near-immediately runs out.

Basically, if I’m not flat-ass broke, I’m paying another $63 upfront for an XL ink cartridge from HP for one of these printers. And what’s the page yield? 430. I’m still not even near the starter toner cartridge page capacity after spending an extra $63 on ink. To me, the upfront cost of an inkjet printer is pragmatically higher unless I’m so boots-theory-of-economics broke that all I can afford is the printer unit and only print a few pages a month tops.

It’s a soft paywall based on the number of articles you’ve read. I can read it just fine, for instance, but archive.today is there if the wall shows up for you.

I think he usually works for Zelda.