That’s hardly the reason. If you had a multi-party system the voted would be even more spread out between the candidates which makes it even less likely for a candidate to get more votes than the non-voting population. However a multi-party system would significantly lessen the possibility of getting oligarchic control because you wouldn’t have to choose between 2 shitty options, you’d have to have multiple shitty choices for the shittiest one to win.
There has not been an US presidential election where the president got more votes than the number of non-voters. If apathy won then it had won every single time.
Had to check what movies you’re talking about because the spiderman movies have all been successful. Didn’t know that Venom, Morbius, Madam Webb and Kraven were actually Sony spiderman universe (SSMU) garbage and not MCU garbage.
As long as SteamOS doesn’t fail, yes. If SteamOS draws enough gamers for there to be a healthy amount on Windows and SteamOS there will be competition between the two OS-s, which will benefit everyone. If SteamOS does draw away the supermajority of gamers then we still benefit because the open source nature of Linux makes it much harder for Valve to have total control like Microsoft has.
I think the data shows that advertisement is super effective, not that people prefer to be advertised. If people preferred advertising over a better product then games like Balatro, Vampire Survivors etc. literally couldn’t be successful, because those games had effectively zero marketing budget. Their success came from word-of-mouth because the game itself was great.
Maybe I’m misremembering (or it’s just old knowledge and new chips are more sophisticated) but despite it being low voltage vs high voltage the outcome is still on or off because there’s a resistor in the semiconductor that either allows current through or not. If it were a light switch it would be the equivalent of turning the light on or off.
Steam hardware survey puts 4090 at 1.16% and 7900xtx at 0.54%. That means if we look at only the 4090s and 7900xtx-s then just between the two of them the 7900xtx makes up about a third of the cards. So yeah, you are a minority of a minority.
As for this number jargon. I’m not exactly sure what you’re trying to prove here but I’m sure you’re comparing an overclocked card to a stock card and if you’re saying it’s matching the 4090D then you’re not actually matching the 4090. 4090D is weaker than 4090, depending on the benchmark it ranges between 5% weaker to 30% weaker. If you were trying to prove that AMD cards can be as good as Nvidia cards then you’ve proven that even with overclocking the top of the line AMD card can’t beat a stock top of the line Nvidia card.
It’s already Nvidia or nothing. There’s no point fighting with Nvidia in the high end corner because unless you can beat Nvidia in performance there’s no winning with the high end cards. People who buy high end cards don’t care about a slightly worse and slightly cheaper card because they’ve already chosen to pay premium price for premium product. They want the best performance, not the best bang for the buck. The people who want the most bang for the buck at the high end are a minority of a minority.
But on the other hand, by dropping high end cards AMD can focus more on making their budget and mid-range cards better instead of diverting some of their focus on the high end cards that won’t sell anyway. It increases competition in the budget and mid-range section and mid-range absolutely needs stronger competition from AMD because Nvidia is slowly killing mid-range cards as well.
the high end crowd showed there’s no price competition, there’s only performance competition and they’re willing to pay whatever to get the latest and greatest. Nvidia isn’t putting a 2k pricetag on the top of the line card because it’s worth that much, they’re putting that pricetag because they know the high end crowd will buy it anyway. The high end crowd has caused this situation.
You call that a loss for the consumers, I’d say it’s a positive. The high end cards make up like 15% (and I’m probably being generous here) of the market. AMD dropping the high and focusing on mid-range and budget cards which is much more beneficial for most users. Budget and mid-range cards make up the majority of the PC users. If the mid-range and budget cards are affordable that’s much more worthwhile to most people than having high end cards “affordable”.
Actually AMD has said they’re ditching their high end options and will also focus on budget and midrange cards. AMD has also promised better raytracing performance (compared to their older cards) so I don’t think it will be the new norm if AMD also prices their cards competitively to Intel. The high end cards will be overpriced as it seems like the target audience doesn’t care that they’re paying shitton of money. But budget and midrange options might slip away from Nvidia and get cheaper, especially if the upscaler crutch breaks and devs have to start doing actual optimizations for their games.
Some people on the internet are saying it’s okay to not support Palestine because they’re not pro LGBTQ enough.
It’s an insane argument to make so I guess that’s why OP feels like it’s CIA.
Sure you can, because those are two different things. Feature creep applies to functionality that is there straight out the box. Add-ons are things that are built ontop of the out the box solution.
To put it in hardware, if you buy a PC then a PC is what you get out the box. If every PC had to come with a dedicated graphics card that would be a PC feature creep, because every PC doesn’t need a dedicated graphics card. However, that doesn’t mean you want mobo manufacturers to remove the PCIe slot, because you might want to add on (pun intended) a graphic card.
Just because I think something shouldn’t be in the baseline for everyone doesn’t mean I also don’t want to those things to be available for the people who do want those things in their system
There are so many games that I don’t even care about all the games available on Steam (that I’d be willing to play). We have so many games coming out that I’d have to play game for a living to play all the games I want to play, and even then I’m not 100% sure I’d be able to play everything I’d be open to play. I have multiple games that I’ve purchased and installed thinking “I’ll get to them soon enough” and they’re just taking drive space. I also have multiple games on my wishlist that are “waiting for a discount” but I’m probably never going to pick them up because actually they’re waiting for my backlog to clear and it will never clear.
Does it suck that Alan Wake is Epic exclusive. Sure. Does it really matter to me? Not really because I’m oversaturated with games I want to play. Missing one great game doesn’t matter when I already have a backlog of great games I won’t purchase because I have a backlog of great games I’ve purchased that I won’t play because I have a backlog of great games I really want to play.
She considers wealth redistribution as something that causes people to sacrifice their wealth. She also considers rational self-interest as something that can’t happen if others sacrificing anything. Thus voluntarily participating in an act of wealth redistribution, which getting social security is, contradicts rational self-interest because it’s causing others to sacrifice their wealth. Her doing that either means she’s a hypocrite who doesn’t actually believe in her own work, which you disagree with and defend (as evident from the very first comment you made), or her work is ideologically inconsistent, which you also disagree with and defend (the comments where you argue it’s in her self-interest because she’s paid into it).
It doesn’t matter to me which way you’re going to try to twist this, you’re going to end up defending her or her ideology because you’ve already done both of those things. I’m not going to continue arguing over those points because I’ve already established my surrender. You won the defense of Ayn Rand, hence the tag.
You don’t have to try so hard anymore, you’ve already defended her ideology. We’re done here, I’ve already tagged you as “defends Ayn Rand” so in the future I’d know who I’m talking to.
By deliberately ignoring the meaning given by the author of the term and instead making up your own definition that suits your argument? Such a crusader for correct meanings.
I can’t use her own words to show how she’s a hypocrite? My bad, I thought we were having a honest discussion. Go enjoy your successful defense of Ayn Rand and her ideology because I’m fucking done with you.
I didn’t mean Rand herself. I meant the other guy was taking too broad strokes when it comes to participation. If a socialist becomes a capital owner and someone says calls them out for not being a socialist you can’t be “well they have to participate in the capitalist system so the criticism is moot”. They have to participate only to the extent of what is effectively forced upon them, but it doesn’t mean they have to go and start exploiting others. Same with Rand. Yeah, she had to participate in the taxation part of the process. She didn’t have to participate in the getting benefits part but she still chose to participate.
And the entire argument here is over whether or not she’s a hypocrite for not practicing what she preached. I think in that sense we’re in agreement that she’s a hypocrite because even if she herself has no standard she still preached about a certain standard. I honestly don’t care if it’s her lack of standards or too high standards of whatever ideology is present in her works, I simply see a disconnect between what she’s said and what she’s done and to me that’s hypocrisy. The other person however is trying to hold her to her own standard by trying to argue her actions are consistent with the ideology she presented.
I’ll ask again, are you arguing that taking social security when you can is not in your self interest?
Yes. That is exactly what Ayn Rand is saying.
The system doesn’t go away if you don’t take it and you’ve already paid into it.
And? Paying into it shouldn’t change your ideological stance. Or is a vegan allowed to eat meat if they pay to eat at an all you can eat restaurant that serves meat? After all they’ve already paid for the meat.
She is still going to have pay into the system if she lives. Not her decision for it to exist or pay into it.
Yes, she is being forced to participate in the system the same way socialists are forced to participate in a capitalist system. Nobody is calling her a hypocrite for paying taxes.
The decision is to take the money or don’t. Which is the decision that is self interested?
According to Rand. A decision made with rational self-interest is a decision that can’t sacrifice others and any redistribution of income is a distribution of sacrifice. That means any action in the redistribution process is not compatible with rational self-interest, because the process itself is sacrificing others. She gets a free pass on paying taxes because that participation is forced upon her. She doesn’t get a free pass on taking out social security because now she chose to participate in a process that is sacrificing others. Rational self-interest doesn’t justify her decision because she is choosing to sacrifice others.
There are gifs of side by side comparison with literally Hitler doing the exact same movement. There side by side gifs with neo-nazis doing the exact same movement. You have Germans saying “Yeah, that was totally a nazi salute”. You have historians saying it was a nazi salute.
But okay, let’s say it wasn’t a Nazi salute. There’s mainstream sentiment clearly indicating that people thought it was a Nazi salute and he definitely is aware of that sentiment. Why hasn’t he said “it wasn’t a nazi salute. I never intended to make it seem like it was.”? Any sane person would instantly try to distance themselves from being perceived as a Nazi because nobody, besides a dumbass nazi, would want to be associated with nazis.