The bigger threat is that they have no idea how to run a game company. EA was already hated for the various things they were doing to try to squeeze more of a profit out of gamers. Have a private equity company run it and that’s only going to get worse.
The last time there was an unfettered free market in housing was when pioneers were driving wagons west and just claiming land and building a log cabin by hand. And the natives nearby might have had some opinions on whether that was OK to do.
In the modern world, there are lots of housing-related taxes, tons of regulations on how the house is built, the house needs to be attached to a government-controlled sewer system, electrical system, water system, sometimes a gas system too.
To some extent that regulation is a burden, but developers also see it as an opportunity, because they can pass costs on to home buyers. They choose when, where and how to built in order to make as big a profit as possible. The government sets the rules of the game, and the property developers play that game to get the maximum score possible.
If the government pretends that it’s a free market, they’re letting the property developers play the game unopposed. It’s even worse when the government creates incentives to build new housing and the property developers just find some way to pocket that subsidy and then keep playing the game the same way.
Hell, the house my dad got when he was a train driver with a wife that didn’t work and with 2 kids is a house I can’t buy as a senior software developer with 3 cats.
My dad bought a house when he was mid 30s and the solo bread winner for the house a couple of years after I was born. I loved that neighbourhood. It wasn’t anything too special. The houses there are 50s-90s builds, 2-3 bedrooms, maybe 2 bathrooms (our second bathroom in that house was almost an outhouse in the basement – concrete floor, exposed pipes, door that looked like it belonged on a shed, etc. My dad and a friend built a back deck which was really nice. There is a park nearby. There’s access to a nice bike path. It’s not on a through-route at all, so the only cars entering the neighbourhood are residents or guests. It’s not near shopping, not near public transit, not really near any schools. It was just a quiet, modest, neighbourhood.
I’m significantly older, don’t have any kids to support, have been saving for ages, had better, and higher paying jobs (inflation adjusted) than him. I can’t really afford any house in that neighbourhood. The only people buying there now are multi-millionaires, but they’re moving in next to families who have been there for 30ish years and know enough not to give up a good thing.
It just seems to me that a rule of thumb with housing is that in general you should be able to afford to buy in the neighbourhood where you grew up. I know sometimes that isn’t possible. Cities get denser, areas become highly sought after, etc. But, if the neighbourhood really is basically the same, and you earn what your parents did (or better), you should be able to stay nearby.
Except this digital bouncer can memorize every ID it sees. It can reproduce them perfectly for someone else to see. In fact, there’s no realistic way for this bouncer to ever forget an ID it has seen.
I was using the Internet at a time when people took it being non-commercial completely seriously. You never saw ads because, as a community, we had decided that ads were not allowed. It was completely decentralized, so you might be running your own server, but if you put an ad on your server other people would get mad at you for it. This was pre-WWW and then a bit of the early days of the WWW.
Then there was a period where ads, commerce, shopping, etc. were possible and permitted. But, that was still the minority of things. There were thousands of web pages full of mythology and folklore for example, that people had just put up because that was something they were interested in. Running a web page cost you next to nothing, so there was no need to put ads on it. You could use Yahoo to find those sites, and I guess Yahoo was commercial by that point, but if it had ads they were small and unobtrusive.
Over time, things got more and more commercial. You saw ads more and more often. But, at least then it was ads on static content, or ads on a forum or something. It wasn’t an infinite algorithmically-generated feed optimized to keep you engaged.
There was a lot to like about that super early non-commercial Internet. But, I don’t think that was the peak moment though. Some ads and early for-profit services made it better. I think the thing that really wrecked it was the lack of competition. When there are 100 commercial services fighting over your attention, they can’t collude, you can boycott one, etc. When there are 5, you basically have to accept whatever they give you.
Carding as in credit card theft? Or carding as in a bouncer checking someone’s ID at the door?
Maybe, but that doesn’t matter since automated age verification doesn’t work. Kids always figure out ways to bypass it, and it snares unlucky adults all the time.
Nineteen brazillian? Wow, that’s a lot.
Some use something called a “bag-closing chain stitch”, which is done using a special bag-closing machine. The way it works is that the machine punches the thread through the bag material leaving a loop on the back side. It then connects that loop to the next stitch. The thread holds the bag securely closed, but if you pull on the right part of the thread each stitch disconnects in a chain until the whole thing is undone.
My post was way too long because it goes against the popular sentiment. If you agree with the popular sentiment, you can afford to have a short post. If you disagree and keep it short, people will downvote you for the things you didn’t mention, or will accuse you of not considering X.
Anyhow, I’m in favour of investing in neighbouring countries, or just donating to them. There are problems with donating some things like food. It helps keep people alive, but it also means farmers take a hit because they’re competing with free. But, it’s hard to argue when people need food or they’ll die. Donating training and skills development is a better path. I know someone who works at an NGO that works with local NGOs to train their leadership to be more effective. I think that’s one of the best things I’ve heard of for helping other countries because it just makes the people living there more effective at what they do. But, it’s not a quick process.
I’ve also travelled and that’s why I want borders, at least for now.
We should definitely be working to raise people in the poorer parts of the world out of poverty. I’ve been to some developing countries, and life there is extremely hard. That’s why so many of them want to move to a rich country where they can live a better life.
Yeah, as a rich westerner, borders are an annoyance. It’s great going around Europe and going from the Netherlands to France without needing a passport or anything.
Having said that, in the Netherlands and France, and most other western countries, there is a great social safety net paid for by taxes that makes sure that everybody living in those countries can live a decent life. But, even Europe was put under stress by the fact that some countries in the EU have a GDP per capita that’s half what it is in other places.
A fair number of people migrated to richer countries within the EU for a better life. Most found a job and worked. They contributed more to the countries than they received in benefits. Even then, that was hard on those richer countries because it displaced some of the lower-wage workers, or depressed their wages. Despite this, the EU has mostly held together, other than Brexit, and the majority of the UK now regrets Brexit.
The important thing to remember is that the EU vets members before allowing them in, and was slow to allow the poorer Eastern European countries to join.
If the world eliminated borders tomorrow, the richer western countries would be swamped by poorer people from developing countries seeking a better life. There’s no way that the systems in those countries could cope.
The rich might love it. Suddenly there would be hundreds or thousands of people competing for the lowest paying jobs, allowing the bosses to offer the lowest possible wages, the worst possible working conditions, etc. The ultra-rich business owners could get rid of unions and get local workers for next to nothing.
For the slightly less rich, the professional class, it wouldn’t be too bad. Their jobs are protected. You need to pass the bar to be a lawyer. You need to do a residency to become a doctor. Their professional associations would continue to do the work necessary so that say a doctor in Nigeria didn’t have their credentials recognized in the west.
The less wealthy you are, the less protected you would be. For someone whose job doesn’t require any kind of diploma, certificate or degree, there would be no protection. They’d be competing with every unskilled person who came into the country seeking opportunities.
Even if you personally think that chaos is a small price to pay for a more fair world, a lot of people don’t. The rise of far-right and fascist movements in the west is a direct result of increasing immigration. If borders were eliminated, not only would there be a lot more far-right voters, there would probably be violent clashes, even mass slaughters.
A lot of people hate globalization, but it has resulted in raising a lot of people in developing countries out of extreme poverty. It has done that mainly by taking wealth and power away from the poorest people in richer countries by shipping their jobs overseas. That part sucks. But, at least a lot of people in developing countries are no longer in danger of dying if they have a bad few weeks.
Programs like USAID were a better way of doing some of the same things. These were often subsidies for US farmers whose produce was then just donated or sold extremely cheaply to developing countries. There were of course problems with this system too. Often the “farmers” receiving the subsidies were rich corporations. But, it did raise the floor for some of the worst-off people in the world.
If we can continue to find ways to help people in developing countries, we should do that. Hopefully we can find a better way to do it than we’ve done in the past. But, even a less-than-ideal solution does help. Eventually, we may be able to reach a point at which we can remove borders without resulting in a mass migration that overwhelms the systems of the richer countries.
There are really 2 problems:
A couple I know moved from Canada to the UK. Even at 6ish years old, despite being raised by them, including one as a stay-at-home mom, the kid had a strong British accent.
Luckily, they’re mostly immune, although my friend does now say “gareridge” instead of “gahraje”.
And if they’re just passively sitting next to you while you’re watching, that’s fine.
But, it’s different if they interrupt to ask questions, or rewind, or if they need the subtitles on even though they’re not actually really paying attention.
A lot of people glance up at the screen, read the subtitles, then go back to scrolling.
I’d love a subtitle standard that would allow me to move them to a dedicated screen under my monitor today
AFAIK in movie theatres they have a closed captions system that’s basically like an individual teleprompter device for anybody who needs the captions.
I can see the movie / TV show, but the shots are ruined.
Cinematographers spend so much effort coming up with the perfect shot. They have amazing lighting, the perfect angles, the subject framed exactly right, the focus is perfect, with the background being blurred exactly the right amount.
And then some jerk ruins all that work by slapping text all over their perfect shot.
It’s like trying to listen to a good song while a DJ talks over it. Or, like trying to taste a delicious meal while someone is smoking next to you.
Also people watched TV. They didn’t have the TV on while they scrolled on their phones and didn’t pay much attention. I’m sure that not concentrating on what’s happening is part of the issue for a lot of people.
What makes you think that the average politician is actually a leader, rather than just a follower who pays attention to polls? That would imply they have a spine, which seems unlikely.
Apparently the original phrase dates back to at least Latin times, and was about the fertility and harvest of someone else’s crops.
It’s funny that some time in the 1900s it became about the greenness of grass, something I personally couldn’t care less about.