Blakerboy777

joined 1 year ago
[–] Blakerboy777@kbin.social 2 points 11 months ago

@beefbaby182

@delitomatoes

It sucks when a show is spinning it's wheels and a significant actor moves on to greener pastures, but you get it. It really sucks when a show rockets off and actors leave because the show has made them into a star who get offered bigger projects to capitalize on their fame. Mucking things up for the thing that made you famous is such BS.

[–] Blakerboy777@kbin.social 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

@HobbitFoot

@delitomatoes Many sitcoms have an overarching romance arc between two leads that gets stretched out for eternity. I don't know how much I can vouch for "The Office" handling other storylines, but the getting Pam and Jim together 1/3rd of the way through the series, and then not having them constantly breaking up and dating other people and then getting back together (like Friends) was a real breath of fresh air. The show really proved they could survive as an anthology without having the main romantic arc to fall back on. Of course, later on they introduce serious romantic arcs for other characters.

[–] Blakerboy777@kbin.social 20 points 11 months ago

@infyrin

@fubo I'm confused, this literally backs up what he said.

[–] Blakerboy777@kbin.social 12 points 11 months ago (1 children)

@FaceDeer

@Madison_rogue it does. The artwork was detected as being created with AI due to significant quality issues, not through thorough forensic analysis/mathematical models.

[–] Blakerboy777@kbin.social 1 points 11 months ago

@Nintendianajones64

@picandocodigo @slimerancher I think you're underselling how important the price cuts were to the PS2's longevity, and I don't think Nintendo is willing to go nearly that far. The PS2, like the Nintendo Switch, launched at $299. 2 years later it dropped to $199. Then steady price cuts all the way to $129 preceeding the launch of the PS3 in 2006 at $499/$599. I think it's safe to say that the enormous price difference played a huge role in it's ongoing sales past the PS3 launch. PS2 launched in March 2000, and 7 years later it had sold 117 million units, taking us just a few months past the PS3 launch. In the next 5 years the PS2 sales racked up another 40 million units, or about 25% of all PS2's sold occurred after it's successor's launch.

If the Switch were to follow the same trajectory and a Switch 2 launched this holiday season, we'd see another 40+ million units sold over the next 5 years, ending in over 170 million units sold. But there are a number of reasons to doubt this will happen.

#1 there might literally just not be enough chips left to do that- it's speculated that Nvdia stopped production of the chips and there's a finite number left, which may fall short of that goal.

#2 Nintendo seems very reluctant to drop prices. The PS2 by this point was less than half of the launch price and only 65% of its cost after the first major price drop. The Switch is 100% of its launch price, and I believe in some regions it even got a price hike.

#3 it seems implausible that the Switch 2 will cost as much as a PS3 did at launch (more expensive than the Series S and PS5 digital, equivalent to Series X and PS5 disc). That means the price delta between the Switch and Switch 2 will necessarily be far narrower than the PS2/PS3, so continued sales after the Switch 2 launch are unlikely to be as robust.

#4 Sony wasn't trying to pump up the PS2 numbers, selling it nearly until the PS4 came out was a strange phenomenon born of unusual circumstances. I don't think Nintendo will have any interest in selling the Switch alongside it's successor except to clear out inventory, for the same reason the Wii U and Switch V1 were both discontinued promptly after their successor's came out.

[–] Blakerboy777@kbin.social 4 points 11 months ago (3 children)

@slimerancher

@picandocodigo it's averaging about 20M units a year, so assuming Switch 2 makes the Switch 1 totally obsolete, we'd need another year+ of strong sales to rise to number one. If the Switch 1 continues to be sold after Switch 2 is released (not fully backwards compatible, Switch 1 price drop, Switch 2 is just more expensive), then less than a year or strong sales plus another couple years of long tail sales to get over the hump.

If it overtakes, I can imagine the most likely scenario to make it happen are - Switch 2 is considered unambiguous successor at $350-$400, Switch 1 price drop of only like $25-$50, basically just to clearance out the old stock, except no switch lite replacement for the first year, so the now $150-$175 switch lite continues to to rack up sales at a ridiculously apealing price. Obviously they could easily reach 1at place if they did a really agressive price drop but that doesn't seem likely for nintendo at all- a small price drop on the lite, especially if the choices are $150 Lite, $250 V2, $300 OLED, $400 Switch 2

[–] Blakerboy777@kbin.social 5 points 11 months ago

@palordrolap

@Haus antivax "just asking questions" bullshit has made us all so cagey about asking genuine questions. Really sucks. I hate that so muvh conspiracy bullshit gets spread via asking loaded disingenuous questions.

I know what you're talking about, basically if the virus mutates the thing that vaccines target, there didn't seem like a very likely pathway to mutate and remain highly contagious. That's not necessarily a general vaccine rule, but it applies to the covid 19 spike protein. No idea how this news relates to that and would love to have some really smart person show up and explain it. Maybe Hank Green will do a video on it?

[–] Blakerboy777@kbin.social 7 points 11 months ago

@stopthatgirl7

@rafoix I'm confused about the defense of "they should have closed off the roads". He drove around a barricade according to the story, so it sounds like it was shut off. Also just kind of weird to say "yes, I intentionally ran into those people, but the cops should a have done a better job of stopping me." He didn't negligently hit them, right? It was on purpose? You can try to share some blame when an accident happens and say <i>. But it doesn't work when you're actually trying to cause harm.

[–] Blakerboy777@kbin.social 2 points 11 months ago

@numnum

@skhayfa your wording is a little confusing - you said this will only bring them to $21, and and that they were hoping for more than $10. A) this will bring them to $21 today, with 4 more guaranteed yearly increases bringing the total to $28.52. B) if I'm understanding correctly, minimum pay today is $18.25, so this would cumulatively be a $10.27 raise over 5 years.

What would an actually good contract look like? To me, I can definitely understand why this would be dissapointing. But I can also understand why some people would be willing to accept a greater than 50% wage increase over 5 years as a win.

[–] Blakerboy777@kbin.social 6 points 11 months ago

@Gutotito

@Snorf

To be clear, this wasn't a zygote, which would be a fertilized cell. This was a fetus at week 23, which is later than most abortions are performed without fetal abnormalities. Less than 1% of abortions are performed that late. A fetus may be considered viable around that point as well (this would be on the extreme end though). Many pro-choice people base their justification around fetal viability and don't necessarily feel great about abortions performed after that much development.

I'm not trying to justify these charges, but let's steer away front hyperbole. Prior to Dobbs, a state could have restricted access to abortion in this same way. Saying "zygote" implies this could happen to anyone who gets an abortion, which simply isn't implied by this decision.

[–] Blakerboy777@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

@genoxidedev1

@CosmicSploogeDrizzle @AProfessional

Dolphin is open source, add a better updater.

I personally don't know how to write a better updater. It would have been a huge win to get access to steam's for free. This isn't putting down Dolphin to want that.

[–] Blakerboy777@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

@Saganastic

@SCmSTR @bazus1 @SaltySalamander

When I ran into issues with too many people trying to stream at once, I had to upgrade to the most premium subscription which allows 4 simultaneous streams. Whether it was a black letter rule or not, the "more money for more simultaneous streams" policy goes hand in hand with shared accounts. How many households are going to need to simultaneously stream 4 different Netflix streams at the same time? Not to mention other oddities.

  1. they just developed the profile transfer feature alongside the password sharing crackdown. Previously, they supposedly didn't want people in different households to share an account, but had no solution for if you left a household.

  2. this gives a strong preference to households over families, which is not how other internet services work. When you send your kid to college, each year they need to make a new shared Netflix account with whichever roommate they have, and even mid-year if their roommates change. They can't share with their own parents. Imagine if cellphone family plans worked that way?

  3. why did they stop advertising that premium plans increase the number of people who can watch simultaneously? When I go to select a plan on Netflix right now, it's now religsted to a footnote. It used to be a prominent feature. It would seem to me that they are aware how counter-intuitive and misleading it is to advertise the amount of simultaneous streams your allowed when it's already limited to household members.

view more: ‹ prev next ›