Acting like Death Star interceptor and Vader Immortal don’t exist.
Acting like Death Star interceptor and Vader Immortal don’t exist.
That’s not an entirely accurate representation, because after taxes you still use that money for housing and food and transportation etc. In business terms that 50k would still contain operating costs. So that $120 might still seem a lot.
That 50k a year should be extra money, the money left in your pocket after taxes, housing, groceries, other necessities and debts are paid off. That would give an accurate representation of how insignificant a $120 ticket would be.
102 million is a major fine for you. For meta that’s less than 1% of their last quarter (which was 13 billion net income).
So another 5 years? IMO HDR is the perfect example why protocol development needs to be sped up. HDR is roughly a decade old at this point and (if we exclude custom implementations) we’re still in the process of working it out.
Hamilton genuinely amazes me. When I think about Merc drivers I remember Russell trying to squeeze every point out of the car and Hamilton complaining about the car. And then I end up watching the overall standing and Hamilton is ahead of Russell? Like a magician he pulls points out of nowhere.
Free? When was the last time you got free food? Free in the fully subsidized by the government kind of way. Unless you live on food stamps (in which case you’re usually fucked in pretty much every other way) I can’t think of another way how you’d get free food. I guess technically dumpster diving but I’m sure it’s only a matter of time until it’s made illegal (if it’s not already illegal).
And if the food not free then more available food doesn’t matter if the people can’t afford it. We produce enough food to feed everyone and we still have people without food security.
Out for curiosity, why do you need 128gb of ram?
Refute what exactly? The fact that you keep harping about supply means you don’t even understand what I’m saying. The only thing you’re refuting is your intelligence.
If they’re the same 3 posts I saw then it’s all OP.
He’s not talking about the communist manifesto, he’s talking about Das Kapital. If you don’t care to read it there are YouTube summaries such as this one . If you want to get straight into the meat of the subject you can start from chapter 4 and if you think it’s all stupid take the 5-6 minutes to listen to chapter 7 so you’d at least know where socialists are coming from when they say capitalists are stealing your money.
How about you make an example where supply actually matters.
Since you’re so incapable of thinking for yourself I’ll go through it again with everything you mentioned. Same prerequisite except now everyone has a phone and excess phones turn instantly to waste, or do you need a point by point explanation on how excess supply turns into waste?
Scenario 1: Every year 1000 new phones get released.
Scenario 2: Every 3 years 1000 new phones get released.
As you can see. Even with supply meets the demand exactly you generate waste if you release a new phone every year. If the supply exceeds the demand it generated waste. I don’t see how it could be made any clearer beyond also going over your comment point by point.
Why would you make your scenario supply constrained?
Because how do you create a secondary market that would buy used phones? I could’ve gone with “people are poor” but that is much harder to put into an example. The supply constraint itself doesn’t matter, but I did my best with the new example.
Your argument is simply if we sold less phones, less would go to e-waste, and duh.
Nope. My argument was that if we made less phones less would go to e-waste. That also covers unsold phones that go straight into waste as evident from my new example.
That wasn’t debate, it was whether releasing new phones every year was wasteful vs new phones being released every 2-3 years.
If you release a new phone every year you manufacture more phones. I guess technically you can manufacture the same amount of the same model for 2-3 years as you would manufacture yearly new phone. But that makes no sense from an enterprising point of view because you reach market saturation and the phones simply don’t get sold, you’re just manufacturing a loss for the company. Even if you manufacture the same model yearly you’re still going to manufacture them less (due to demand dropping) than if you made a new model every year.
Your scenario also assuming people buy used or they just don’t have a phone. People who buy a used phone generally do so instead of buying a new phone.
If you paid attention you would’ve noticed that in both previous scenarios 800-900 people bought used phones and only 100-200 people bought brand new phones. I did that deliberately because you argued that reselling the phone has an effect when it really doesn’t. At the end of the line the person who bought the last used phone throws their current phone away because you can’t sell that to anyone. Which means as long as phone is manufactured regardless of whether it gets sold or not or resold or not, eventually it will go in the bin as e-waste. The best way to reduce waste is to not produce excessively like we’re doing right now.
Are you stupid? Let’s say we have 1000 people and they all want the latest phone, all manufactured phones get bought and everyone sells their old phones. And phones don’t break.
Scenario 1: Every year 200 new phones get released.
Scenario 2: 100 phones get released (to better stimulate the real world because someone is going release a phone anyway, but you can also imagine 200 phones releasing every 2 years as the numbers will the same for every even year).
It literally cannot be empirically untrue because what I said is mathematically true. Let’s say that in both scenario 1 and scenario 2 at the end of year 50 they decide to throw away all phones and never create another phone again. In scenario 1 there would be 10 000 e-waste phones. In scenario 2 there would be 5000 e-waste phones. The more you create the more waste will come down the line. If you want less waste, make less phones.
And before you go “but recycling?” only about 20% of e-waste gets recycled and the recycling process doesn’t recycle all the waste.
Trade ins and selling old phones doesn’t really reduce e-waste. What reduces e-waste is manufacturing less phones.
So all subscription games are gambling? What about Fallout 76? It’s not gambling if you just buy the game but if you buy the subscription the game becomes gambling despite the game fundamentally stays the same and the subscription doesn’t add any RNG to the game?
In that case aren’t most games gambling? You fight a boss and you die. You have failed and you lose progress of the boss fight which means the failed fight was a waste of time. Gambling.
My actual point is that despite us having a relatively good intuition on what is gambling, defining what gambling really is is pretty hard. Be too broad and you will end up marking non-gambling things as gambling, be too narrow and you get things like lootboxes that definitely feel like gambling but don’t actually fit most legal definitions of gambling.
Your definition is so broad it encompasses almost all games and as such is useless when you want to use it to regulate gambling on games.
That depends on the gun but at the very least no slower than one shot.
Right, so let’s assume they’re lying to some extent? How much of the number do you think is made up? 50%?
Can he be swapped? I thought the reason Biden got swapped is because he wasn’t locked in yet, but now the candidates are locked in.
They do exist and some of them swear Mac has better workflows (than windows because most of the time your options are Windows or Mac). I would call them loonies but I’ve seen some smart people use Macs.