pjwestin

Whenever people say that you grow more conservative when you get older, they're working from the premise that you'll grow more affluent and comfortable later in life. For Americans, that just isn't true anymore. Wages are mostly stagnant, home ownership is much less attainable, and cost of living is at an all time high. Yet for some reason, pundits just can't figure out why millenials aren't getting more conservative as they age, or why zoomers appear to be following this trend.

This is stupid and petty, but it is very satisfying to see he's still stuck on this nearly 3 weeks after the debate.

Most people are referring to the fact that boomers were born into the strongest social safety net in American history and then allowed Regan to gut it for short-term gains. The original aphorism may not be true, but I can't think of a generation it applies to more.

I really don't understand why they're simultaneously arguing that they need access to copyrighted works in order to train their AI while also dropping their non-profit status. If they were at least ostensibly a non-profit, they could pretend that their work was for the betterment of humanity or whatever, but now they're basically saying, "exempt us from this law so we can maximize our earnings." ...and, honestly, our corrupt legislators wouldn't have a problem with that were it not for the fact that bigger corporations with more lobbying power will fight against it.

I'm so glad I wasn't the only one who saw that. Unless that's a caricature of someone specific, that is...uncomfortable, to say the least.

Oh, I'm sure sure their culture is terrible, but that's also about what I expect from any game developer in 2024. At least they're not like Microsoft, buying up small studios, working them to death, and then shutting them down for short-term profit. But you're absolutely right, that is a shitty thing about their company that I completely glossed over.

Also, to he fair, Palword tried to do something cool inspired by Pokémon, and The Pokémon Company and Nintendo are suing them on what seems like a bullshit patent-troll claim. I actually think some of their character designs do seem like blatant rip-offs, but the idea that those games are too mechanically similar is nonsense.

That's Game Freak. Nintendo is the publisher, and it owns 32% of The Pokémon Company, but they don't actually develop the games.

If Nintendo weren't such pricks about their IP, they would be a perfect company. They don't chase short-lived trends, they don't make live-service slop or loot boxes, their DLC is usually great (without feeling necessary), they constantly experiment and innovate, and most of their hardware is incredibly durable and reliable (joycon drift being the big exception). But if you make a fan game or host a tournament using one of their games, even if it's been out of print for 20 years, even if you're not monetizing it, they will come after you. It's the one thing I really hate about them.

Thank you! Yeah, I guess there could be lots of butterfly effect reasons that Starfleet wasn't overrun by Borg. Thanks for the answer! My searches for, "TNG Tapestry Borg," were not helpful.

I don't remember, did they ever explain why the Borg didn't take over in that timeline? I know Q could have made the whole thing up, but assuming he didn't, it seems like Picard's leadership is what stopped the Borg from taking over (based on what happened to the Riker-led Enterprise from Parallels). Did they make any mention of Wolf 359 or anything like that?

The trees in the background are burning, and an increase in wildfires is definitely a part of climate change.

That's definitely the impression I got in the third movie. In the first one, we only see the Himalayan headquarters, and it seems like there's a white guy inexplicably in charge of an all Asian team of ninja assassins (although I think I remember one black guy being there when they burned Wayne manor).