Not really. A machine that only breaks down every 10 years but is expensive to repair could be considered dependable and expensive to maintain. Similarly, a machine that has expensive parts which rarely fail within their expected lifespan could be considered dependable and expensive to maintain.
Edit: you're also ignoring the cost of finding and hiring people who know how to maintain the systems. The systems themselves could be dependable, but the skills required to maintain them are expensive.
Once upon a time I couldn't understand why companies and governments still used ancient computer systems running DOS, Win3.1, or 9x, or computers like C64s. "Upgrade! Your new systems will be far more powerful and efficient; and that means they're better!" -teenage me at some point, probably.
However, as I've gotten older I've realized that it's because "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". While Southwest may spend more money than necessary on maintenance due to the ancient systems needing now-specialized skills, those systems are also time-proven to be as functional and dependable as they need them to be. Ironically, they might actually be more secure than most modern systems due to a combination of decades of specialized security/stability patches they've probably had and simple security-through-obsolescence.
Edit: misremembered the phrase, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
I like the little call button. I know it's probably to radio the pit crew or whatever, but I like to imagine it's so that the f1 drivers can call home if they're feeling homesick during a race.
Shakira supposedly actually had a lot of input on Gazelle's character design, which would kinda potentially make her (Gazelle) the most expensive fursona in the world (depending on how you define "fursona").
Those are ears lol
We do, I dunno what they're on about. Younger millennials loved shit like Halo 3, Gmod, TF2, UT2k4, Q3A, CS:S, HL:DM, DayZ, and so on.
(this is gonna come with some tangents and personal experiences represented by footnotes, sorry if that bothers you)
I think it's people trying to separate the extremists from the non-extremists; kinda like how people used to talk about how al-Qaeda or ISIS were "fake Muslims" because they twist the Quran to make it say anything they want. Additionally, I think there's a legitimate argument to be made about whether or not they can truly be considered Christians because of their refusal to accept Jesus' teachings about unconditional love.
I dunno if the situation with Islam/Quran is similar, but the core tentant of Christianity is that you're a follower of Christ and that Christ's teachings are not open to debate and must be followed, regardless of your opinions on what was said before or after him (aka Old Testament or "interpretive" books of the New Testament^1 ). That means if Christ said it, you have to follow it. That means you don't get to be judgemental, you don't get to look down on the homeless or tell people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, you don't get to be pissy about gay, trans, socialists, communists or any other "-ists" or "-isms" because Jesus taught unconditional love and acceptance.^2
As such, while I understand your stance about fake vs true Christians, I believe that separating people into fake vs true Christians has legitimate value. Again, by definition, Christianity is a religion that revolves around the teachings of Jesus Christ of Nazerath. If you refuse to accept Jesus' teachings then, by definition, you are not a Christian.
(Ironically, you could argue that there are many non-christians who could actually be considered accidental christians if they adhere to the secular parts of Jesus' teachings, though that's a completely different story and mostly based on my personal interpretations of his teachings).
^1 I don't consider myself a Christian anymore, primarily because I think widely-organized religion is cancerous (I think small-scale religious institutes like churches or temples are fine, the problem is when churches, mosques, temples, etc start getting together to dictate belief beyond a church or two). However, there was a brief time during my Christian years where I was taught that the Old and New Testaments were written by humans and were a mix of figurative and literal record. Some stories, like Noah or Job, were almost certainly figurative and meant to be taken as metaphors or moral lessons; while others, like the book of Matthew, were meant to be more literal. Furthermore, because they were written and maintained by humans, they can't be considered 100% accurate simply because humans are imperfect. Even if the original stories were 100% true, they're extremely old and prone to translational mistakes (you can find many disagreements here, a famous one is a disagreement on the anti-homosexuality decree in Leviticus because it could be translated to condemn pederasty instead). You have to piece things together from the variety of sources and contexts presented in the Bible (and if you're a religious scholar, bring in outside sources and historical context too).
As such, I was taught that I needed to apply critical thinking to the Bible and consider what was likely intended by God, and what was human (mis)interpretation; and that the reason why we have so many books of the Bible, sometimes with conflicting statements, is so that we can use them to try and piece together a more accurate picture of what actually happened. If we didn't have multiple perspectives then we'd have to blindly follow a single account and hope it's accurate.
I was taught that I should start with Jesus' teachings and then work outwards in order to properly analyze the Bible, because those are the passages the entire religion is based around. If something conflicted with his teachings, then it was either a flawed interpretation, it was an interpretation that I lacked the historical context for (and is likely irrelevant to me as someone who wasn't a religious scholar, otherwise the context would have probably been included) or it was because his presence was meant to re-write the rules.
Then the church had a conservative "coup" and started teaching brainlessness over thoughtfulness.
Anyway, I'm very aware that my experience was different from the way a lot of churches teach the Bible, but it gave me a radically different perspective on Christianity and it's why I still feel compelled to defend it despite not identifying as one anymore. I saw a side of Christianity that was genuinely interested in teaching love, kindness, acceptance, intelligence and knowledge. I also saw the side of Christianity that got us to where we are today.
^2 I think an argument could be made that the love Christ taught wasn't truly unconditional, but that it was nearly unconditional. The reason for that is, based on my prior stated experience with Christianity, I have a hard time believing that Christ would honestly teach love and tolerance towards practitioners of negative "-isms" like racism or antisemitism.
Christ taught people to turn the other cheek, and (speculatively) I think he'd teach that it's important to be forgiving of those who open their eyes and are repentant of their bigotry. However, I can't see him teaching people to be tolerant of bigotry because that would seem like it'd run counter to the overall theme of his message. If you tolerate bigotry, then wouldn't that make you an accessory to it? After all, your inaction allows bigotry to spread and hold power. Furthermore, if you're an accessory to bigotry, doesn't that make you a bigot yourself? Jesus taught against bigotry, so I think he'd be against tolerating bigotry. I think it's more likely that he'd teach people how to identify, resist, effectively argue with and deprogram people who'd fallen into bigotry.
This was a lot longer than I was expecting, I hope it was an interesting read even if you disagree with it.
If I'm not mistaken they've been using AI upscaling in remasters for 10 or so years now, so it's not like this is something new. If it's honestly that bad then I'm guessing they tried to use "generative" AI like stable diffusion to upscale instead of using something hyper-focused on upscaling like waifu2x.
Are you looking for the game you saw it in, or the actual cultural item? Gyroids are the Animal Crossing items based on the Japanese Haniwa.
Gyroid (Lloyd) in the front, Haniwa in the back:
They're kinda cool either way. I find it fascinating how often Japanese games take influence from esoteric stuff like alleged alien encounters, weird artifacts, etc. For an example, Sableye is based on the Hopkinsville Goblins, it's speculated that "They" from Majora's Mask are based on the Flatwoods Monster, and so on (I swear I saw a really cool article recently that had a long list of weird, esoteric things in Japanese games, but I can't find it :c).
Could be a gyroid from animal crossing. Might also be thinking about haniwa, which gyroids are based on.
I didn't like liberty hub or linkopenschest's politics (my experience with him was him advocating non-voting, but I could have misunderstood what he was trying to say), but what the fuck? Of all the reasons to get outed, this ain't it chief. Like, this is the person who started this all: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/14419145
This person?
Really?
They're basically advocating to gatekeep the LGBT community because, if I understand their argument, they're saying that LGBT people who aren't politically active don't deserve to be part of the community, and that all LGBT gathering places should be political gatherings because being LGBT is political. Motherfucker being LGBT is just something you are. You don't decide to be LGBT. You didn't ask to be born in a world where everyone wants to shit on you. It's entirely reasonable for LGBT people to want places where they can just be themselves and not have to wear their war face.
Furthermore, they accused someone of committing an act of violence toward them for disagreeing with them. Disagreeing with you is not a violent act. You claim you want politics? Well there's your politics. If you don't like it, don't ask for it.
Fucking seriously?
What is going on?