For me a big part of the problem with the ending is just how much the Star Child acts to strip you of player agency. Everything you’ve accomplished in the game is ultimately left in the hands of a character you had no idea existed until the final moments. Worse, it’s largely thanks to a lot of factors your character…

The ending to ME3 was FINE. Not necessarily great, but it was fine.

Right, when I think about the things people buy with BitCoin, I think only meaningful products and services.

Bitcoin isn’t going to ever displace the dollar so talking about it like it’s some sort of alternative is a joke. It’s not even a very good currency, as the thing most cryptobros want it to do (keep going up in value) isn’t something you want when you’re planning on making purchases.

The nature of crypto is to expand to the size of the container. If you’ve got extra electricity it’s essentially wasted capacity. You certainly wouldn’t want to rely on anything they didn’t use, since they have every incentive to just increase their mining ability in the long run.

Where’s the game here? What are players being challenged to do? What’s the risk/skill/reward feedback loop?

Buying a $200,000 car isn’t really in the same league as having a dick measuring contest with other billionaires via competing space programs.

I’m referring specifically to progressive tax policy proposals by the likes of AoC and Liz Warren.

Christ, this attitude is dumb.

You’ve got this strange idea that socialism is about dictating the maximum standard of living when it’s far more about ensuring the minimum standard of living be raised.

Do they not want a progressive tax rate that taxes every dollar past some amount they deem “reasonable” higher than the first “X”?

The issue with blockchain tokens to digital goods is that the digital goods don’t exist on the block chain and the tokens only have “value” if someone else agrees to recognize your token as conferring ownership of said digital good.

I’m guessing, like for a lot of long-time readers, they’re annoyed at the direction being forced on the writers than they are with the writers and their content. I doubt slideshow was Tom’s first preference for the article.

Someone very important, the biggest and most herbacious adult in the room, is of the mind that page views remain the single most important metric to gauge a website’s success by. He made a lot of money on the internet many years ago, so it stands to reason that nothing else could do a better job of demonstrating how…

I’m arguing Spotify should do the moral thing and not chose money when it leads to people being mislead by one of its content makers.

Spotify isn’t morally bound to host someone’s content just because they gave him a platform anymore than YouTube is obligated to maintain a platform for the COVID denialists its kicked off its platform.

He’s entitled to have an opinion but that in no way makes it not unethical. People have this strange misconception that just because you have your own opinion that there’s something special about that opinion like it can’t be judged for its content.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Not everyone’s opinion is equally worth considering at any given moment. You don’t have to air Joe Rogan’s misinformation just because he happens to be cool with it. That’s on Spotify for giving him the platform.

Spare us the “vote with your wallet” spiel. It’s not really the problem. I can not give Spotify any money (which, I don’t) and it can still be a massive misinformation source regardless.

He’s absolutely dumb. He’s just rich enough to be able to avoid the consequences of his demonstrably harmful behavior.