nfh

I mean, it’s in western Asia, next to Azerbaijan and Georgia. “Complicated definitions of Europe” are part of the point here, but it’s pretty clearly not Europe in my mind, but given the Turkish border, it’s not far from Europe like Australia is

Australia, Armenia, and Morocco are all outside of Europe, and have completed too. Basically all European countries are eligible, plus those whose public broadcasters are part of the European Broadcasting Union.

Why not both?

This is one of many examples of a class of problem where the technology is the easy part. There’s room to improve the tech certainly, but the technology sufficient to solve the problem is already well understood.

The hard part is how to get people to actually do the necessary changes. To consume less, get fewer gas cars on the road, increase the amount of nuclear, hydro, solar, geothermal, and wind in the grid, and minimize coal and gas use. To reduce land use by cows, and increase land use by trees and native plants.

But maybe AI is the secret here. We have tools that are in the hype moment whose training data already contains several reasonable solutions to climate change. Maybe if AI “finds” the solution to climate change, people will finally listen

What’s really wild is that not only are games good enough on Windows, but tests lately are showing a consistent trend where the two are often indistinguishable in performance, and where they’re not, Windows isn’t consistently winning.

If you’re not into the genre of competitive multiplayer games that have kernel anticheat, Windows isn’t really better for gaming anymore, outside of being more familiar for many people. Today we’ve reached the point where it’s a few fps either way, and people should use whatever they want, but if Microsoft keeps bloating Windows, it might soon be that the “Windows tax” also refers to the performance penalty you pay for using the familiar OS instead of learning something new.

Would it have actually worked though? The access Hollywood tapes came out during that election, Trump’s behavior of entering the dressing rooms of Miss Teen USA were well reported on, and neither really hurt him. Maybe there’s a chance it would’ve changed the outcome, but it’s hard to imagine that chance is large.

The thing is business is more booming than it’s ever been, but making the line go up forever is a fool’s errand, at some point you’ll hit a peak. Hitting that peak is immensely punished in our economic system.

If you make a hammer that’ll last 100 years, you’ll sell as many as you can reach customers who need one, before hammer sales plummet. Instead of being rewarded for making a great product, you’ll be punished when sales fall because you’ve solved a problem for most people.

Advertising is kind of neutral in abstract in my head. Make a great product for a fair price, and let people know about it, and that’s actually probably a benefit to both parties. Make a terrible product, and tell a bunch of people it’s great, and you’ve spent resources doing them a disservice. But if you can convince them it’s good enough to spend money on it, and keep your revenue per customer above the cost to acquire them, it’s profitable. And that’s all they care about. It’s basically the same pattern as a scam, but profit is the only thing they’re told they’re allowed to care about.

Suddenly cutting off a lot of trade suddenly is a stupid and reckless move that would hurt people in their countries as much as it would hurt the US. It’s basically the same behavior as Trump with his absurd tariffs, banning trade with a country, and taxing people obscenely to buy things from that country mostly work out to the same effects in practice.

Incentivizing other trade partners, and maybe slowly disincentivizing the US makes a lot of sense though. Maybe it made more sense years ago, but as they say, if the best time was yesterday, the next-best time is today.

I’m legitimately surprised a journalist didn’t use virtual credit cards. Knowing full well you’re giving credit card info to the world’s most famous grifter? I’d take every security measure available

Some games also use the rarity system to funnel mechanically simpler cards into more common rarities, which works well in a draft environment, since those are often the cards you want to have come up more. Which is really the point of the system, ideally it would be a system to support draft environments that work well, without artificial scarcity that hurts constructed players.

But you can also make a constructed format that only allows “simpler” cards that have been printed at common, which is neat. Or one that only allows higher rarities.

Facial recognition technology being used for surveillance is awful, I agree, but I don’t think that’s what’s happening here? It seems like they’re just pointing a camera at fireworks, and identifying the property they came from.

Cops with camera drones are also a problem, but it’s not like they’d need anything special you can’t already get off the shelf to do this.

the curing process introduces carcinogenic nitrates, which is a similar risk factor, if I understand correctly

If you’re going to say anything other than unconditionally legal, you need some really clear legal definitions on something, but you certainly can. Like you could define viability as if you delivered it on the spot, you’d have a fully-formed baby with lungs that are ready to breathe, and otherwise unlikely to need life support. You could define the first 6 months of pregnancy as inviable.

You could define the burden of proof in a way that protects doctors, maybe someone trying to already wrongdoing needs to prove that no reasonable physician would agree with their judgement. You could even limit who has standing to take legal action, because some random person on the street isn’t party to it at all.

I’m not saying that “if the doctor and pregnant person agree, it’s legal” is bad, but there are certainly other reasonable options, that I think would play out similarly in practice. Like I’m assuming a doctor about to deliver a baby wouldn’t likely entertain a request for an abortion instead, nor would they likely get one.

Two clear claims are similar levels of ambiguous; not very.