as with all technology though, as they become more accessible with newer models being made and other companies making foldables, the price for the same kind of quality product we have today will inevitably be less in the future.

this is already happening with cpu performance, display quality, etc.. it's finally very affordable to get a 120 hz phone with a fantastic display and snappy processor, specifically thinking of something like the Galaxy A54 or Pixel 8 (on a sale)

a general rule i use regarding technology purchasing is that newest featured top of the line products are best left to rich people who can afford it, as badly as i might want it.

this goes for cars, phones, etc.. one benefit to this is that it gives the product time to become not just more affordable, but better quality as well.

the earliest foldables cracked at their fold points, but Samsungs newest fold phone survived JerryRigEverythings bend test which is impressive.

in a few more years, this quality will surely be available at sub 1000 dollar prices, containing the most modern hardware which will be even better than is available now.

besides uBlock Origin,

Consentomatic automatically declines cookie consent notices. works very well.

indigenous, aboriginal, and aborigine, mean exactly the same thing. anyone getting offended at any of these word usages probably doesn't know the definiton.

i've been raised as a Gen Z to learn "first nations", though aboriginal (from the root word aborigine) also means the exact same thing, so i personally don't comprehend how someone can find offense in using that word.

maybe they are used to seeing aboriginals to describe aussi natives? still, it essentially means "first of the region", or in other words, "first of the nation".

absolutely it gets abused. any time anyone wants you to tolerate what they want you to(defend their own tolerance), they might suggest that you're not being tolerant enough. (suggesting you intolerant)

this means that both intolerance of reasonable rules, as well as intolerance to unreasonable rules can always be twisted as "intolerant of the tolerant ruling".

essentially, whatever an authority establishes as being right/good must be tolerated, whereas what they consider wrong/bad will not be tolerated.

of course most reasonable people know that what people think is good/bad/right/wrong varies massively, and how tricky and meaningless this fact can make the whole idea of "tolerating the intolerant". it certainly doesn't help in convincing the intolerant to be tolerant, so i think it's not worth talking about.

Sam Harris doesn't like this idea, lol. "morality is wellbeing!", well then what is wellbeing to a bad person? it's all relative

i generally like reuters so i submitted feedback (bottom of reuters website) regarding that article in the hopes that something will come of it. i agree that it does seem very weird to do

i mean that assumes that Republicans are an ethnicity. any Democrat concerned about "race suicide" can just become a Republican. (of course this is actually dumb)

i read that article, and the only concern in legalized abortion was the possibility of forced sterilization programs, and this is an incredibly unlikely event for the U.S. in this current time, as it would assume that certain ethnicities are not free to choose their party.

even if that was eventually the plan, that kind of insanity would call for a pretty obviously needed revolution, even among many Republicans who have non-ethnic principles.

what she said isn't actually a good idea of course.. but the point of the meme is that she is more or less saying the exact same thing as "people who choose to want abortions should be allowed to get abortions!" since being a Democrat or Republican is a choice. this is literally pro-choice in a cloak. lol

i'm Canadian though so i have no fkin idea who Ann Coulter is (i thought this suggestion was a joke actually), but if she's Republican, then this goes against the common Republican pro-life narrative, because she's offering abortion as a choice to anyone at all, then this is effectively the pro-choice position.

i do chaotic neutral cause it's essentially neutral evil but with at least the illusion of a more secure seal

lawful neutral, then chaotic neutral when i lose the thingy

none of the four gospels even make the claim to be eyewitness to Jesus!

what you claim is "all the reason to believe" is literally an indirect assumption(and cope) that, "well the writers must have at least known someone who knew Jesus, because that is the only way they could have obtained that information!". this assumes the information wasn't made up narratively.

i find it weird that you attacked the very idea of asserting that the gospels never witnessed Jesus when there's nothing to directly suggest so even from the gospels themselves...

your logic is literally "4 people wrote about Nosferatu, therefore Nosferatu can be historically assumed to exist."

you can worm your assumtion even deeper by also making the claim that "anything that looks like what people describe to be Nosferatu is, IS Nosferatu", which is a massive logical fallacy.

even something like a direct eyewitness account of what appears to be a real a man transforming into a bat would not prove that man was Nosferatu....

hell, this wouldn't even prove that the man was a vampire as opposed to a zillion other narrative shape shifting ideas which are more accurate in describing what truly happened, or even that the person turned into a bat at all! it could have been an incredibly clever magic trick.

history is ultimately an incredibly unreliable source of true facts. there are some things in history we can be reasonably sure of, such as the evolution of language, in which historical texts themselves would count as a sort of evidence if we can confirm the age of the texts, but otherwise, evidence has to confirm history, not the other way around..

i heard someone put it well, that if you had to fight a court case to prove that Jesus existed, you would lose based on hear-say and a lack of evidence, as well as having a ton of reasonable doubt for anyone claiming John Wick or whoever existed based on words in a book alone.

the critic reviews have always been complete dogshit. too many movies get 100% or 0% on rotten tomatoes.

if i'm not mistaken IMDB ratings are only user based, and in my opinion, i almost never disagree with IMDB ratings and i think it's because it has a vastly larger voting group to get a more accurate viewer consensus even if a small number of critics give a 0/10 or 10/10