and chef

Are you eating digestively fermented McDonald’s?

The basic concept wasn’t “there and then left” though, like I feel as though you’re implying. Games came with extra content like maps and guides, sure, but regardless you always bought and owned the game. This has been the case with board games, card games, other physical games, and even digital games since until recently.

Would you suffer the same emotional trauma if you had a leaky roof and your physical game collection got damaged and was unplayable?

That would be pretty upsetting, yes. I owned those, though. I very well may own that roof, too. There’s a lot to be said, considering a leaky roof may even be my own responsibility. You can loose access to a downloaded digital game, however, while maintaining the console fine.

Why would your favourite game that was still saved on your console not be playable but putting a disc with the same data on it somehow would be?

Because of how the licensing framework operates with digital games. It’s no longer in your control to protect your access. Governance of your access isn’t owned by you anymore. When a game is designed to require purchase validation, which many are and they can be changed to retroactively, but the validation server goes offline, you can’t play it without modifying the system—assuming you can modify the system.

You’re getting a little too upset over the potential that you might not be able to play some games you deleted

Games have become inaccessible in the past and will continue to do so. Requiring all games be virtual pretty much ensures all games will, sooner rather than later.

It also goes without saying, it’s a lot easier to protect a disk collection than it is a console. Consoles have many more moving parts that can fail, for obvious reasons.

I don’t think it’s too far fetched to be upset by this.

Easy access isn’t the problem and hasn’t even been tried. There isn’t easy access. There’s illegal access through shady networks with unverified merchants and products. That’s the result of the prohibition… that and decades of a stupid war on drugs.

“Opening it up more” presumes that I mean “give more people more access to more drugs in the same way they do now.” That’s not at all what I mean.

There are some social crises in people life where policing themselves gets lower focus

Sure. Then they can just go to their local gas station drug dealer and buy some meth then. Your solution doesn’t seem much better. I don’t see how this really argues against a utilitarian approach to drug regulation.

Easy access isn’t the problem and hasn’t even been tried. There isn’t easy access. There’s illegal access through shady networks with unverified merchants and products. That’s the result of the prohibition… that and decades of a stupid war on drugs.

“Opening it up more” presumes that I mean “give more people more access to more drugs in the same way they do now.” That’s not at all what I mean.

There are some social crises in people life where policing themselves gets lower focus

Sure. Then they can just go to their local gas station drug dealer and buy some meth then. Your solution doesn’t seem much better. I don’t see how this really argues against a utilitarian approach to drug regulation.

I have a rather interesting view on the matter. Typically even my in-group doesn’t agree with me on this. Yet I think all drugs should be legal. Access to drugs should be strictly regulated (imo), but easy. Therapists should be able to obtain license to administer psychedelics. There should be therapeutic centers specializing in use of psilocybin, ketamine, and MDMA. There should be other types of therapeutic centers where you can get access to methamphetamine, opioids, and other drugs—as prescribed necessary for addiction treatment. There should be places to buy recreational drugs like cannabis.

Everything has a place, in my view. Banning something outright is naive, creating more problems in the long run. If you swap from enforcement of prohibition to a more utilitarian approach, you can get a lot more done. That doesn’t mean you give drugs away and create addicts. It means you be a grown up and stop acting like everything is the boogie man, while also acting like anyone who touches it has caught cooties.

People do a pretty good job policing themselves when the system is established in a manner to empower them with good choices. It’s the same idea as the panopticon, as old as Jeremy Bentham, but in reverse. People aren’t going to go get their free meth when culturally it’s known to be for addicts who are at a bad place in life. People who do just want free meth are now surrounded by psychologists who can help.

It’s not just that experience in and of itself. That is only one experience derived from the lifetime benefit of ownership. You own the things that you enjoy. Hell, I remember playing the Wii… then I remember finding exploits in the Wii, providing replay value… then I remember learning how the Wii works in interesting ways… then I remember hacking the Wii… then I remember discovering a world of community content for hacked wiis… then I remember sharing that with my dad… then I remember regifting that Wii to my mother in law decades later…

Prior generations had the same benefits, be it with cars or whatever. The standards for ownership have been pretty consistent for consumers in the consumer market for centuries if not thousands of years. Suddenly, everything is being locked up and licensed back on fragile infrastructure you don’t own. That’s not tech advancing. That’s you loosing shit.

Sooner or later, people won’t be able to get physical medium at all for the games they enjoy. Favorites will be predestined to be a faded memory, not something you can choose to cherish over time (in a box somewhere, of course). Thats fragile.

What about when life gets busy and you’re suddenly out of touch with modern games? Want to bust out an oldie and kill some time? Tough luck… you never owned those old favorites you’d poured money and time into… That’s where it’s headed. I don’t call that advancement.

I don’t want games that aren’t going to end up in my attic within the decade, so that I can rediscover them in another half decade, and spend several hours trying to boot the legacy hardware to play them.

That whole experience of actually owning your stuff is gone, if you go digital. It’s not just the theoretical risk that they turn the server off. It’s the constant dependency on Sony servers, licenses, accounts, and digital catalog. Those dependancies precede even being able to look at what titles you own.

Do you remember finding your old WII as a kid? Jailbreaking it years after it became irrelevant, and showing your dad that you loaded all his favorite childhood games onto it for him? Contra, Russian Attack, … my son will never have that experience.

Is that how you justify telling other people how they’re allowed to spend their time? You just have to presume that their life is (1) in danger, (2) at their own fault, (3) and it’s your responsibility to do something, (4) even against their own will—and you can just apply this rubric of thought to any particular discontent with their character? How convenient. So, if you don’t like gay people, should you also teach thy neighbor about god? Maybe force them to read the bible in a conversion camp? It sure would be better if everyone thought just like us, huh?

This is funny. Was it too hard to automate everything with AI, that you now need to explore other avenues?

Spanish government

• is different government
• in different timezone
• founded in different year
• and is a different economy

I think you found a hack, actually.

CEO still gets his new car, Microsoft still gets their check, … it’s you, sir, who gets a 2% raise instead of a 7% raise. So you’re paid less value the following year, against inflation, which is what helps make up the difference.

Aren’t there a whole bunch of interesting battery designs that can be worked into the land if you design the house to use it?

Like… (1) design the house to have solar, (2) solar power puts tension on giant underground springs, (3) slowly unwind springs for the power.

Or, lift a weight through some kind of gravity generator. Power generates at night when the weight falls back down.

I don’t know… I’m just assuming there’s got to be pretty neat designs when you figure that you’ve got a giant plot of land and only need enough power for a home on top of it. Do we really need to rely on giant chemical battery manufacturers?

Harris was nominated? I thought she was anointed.

That’s a rather genius idea. A big free circus with bread.

It really seems like the idea is to create walled gardens where you profit from every part of the ecosystem. The ecosystem gets augmented with surveillance because surveillance provides the information necessary to fine tune the ecosystem. The surveillance gets augmented with automation, scaling techniques, and machine learning because they believe that better data continues producing better results. Results being anything that effectively drives profit: vendor lock in, sales, monetizing resales, monetizing game sharing, reducing labor costs, …

At a certain point, the rest of the world should decide that the American bar is too low and easily competed with — right? I mean, who wants the fruits of late stage capitalism? I imagine nobody who hasn’t been raised and educated within a culture which pre-accepts these things as normal.

When the rest of the world begins competing better, do they thing foreign gaming consoles will be banned like foreign cars?

You had a healthy immigrant population that didn’t mind taking up the jobs everyone else didn’t want. They did it, they worked hard, and they had a beer at the end of the day. Too bad they were chased out of town, slandered, kidnapped, tortured, deported to foreign states, …

You’ll have to squint pretty hard. The president is a fat piece of shit with orange skin and a haircut from the muppets. Don’t hurt your eyes, friend.

Caddy is superb

Woah ho ho. So I’m not the only one with an SO that prefers the cold, huh? I too can be found wearing ski pants and a snow jacket in my own home, during July-September

Not saying it’s good science. It’s just a good point. If you have a bite scar on your dick, it’s most likely because you tried putting it somewhere that it should not be.

In the context where a lady comes out of the shadows and says she put a scar on Trumps mushroom, where nobody had ever mentioned a scar on Trumps mushroom before, and it is later revealed that Trump does indeed have a scar on his mushroom…

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck… what is it?