conciselyverbose

joined 2 years ago
[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Multiple USB-C ports is the one that I'd notice most. Less bezel would be good, too, but it wouldn't change how I use it.

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 6 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Bluetooth isn't capable of acceptable controller performance. It's not better on Windows.

The resolution is a deliberate choice. A higher resolution screen isn't worth the trade off.

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Also quite possibly literally every consumer headphone brand that serves America copied the wireless earbud trend they popularized (I have no clue if they were actually first).

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

That's the point. That's the entire (and entirely correct) metaphor.

People ignore the communal benefit because in the short term it's better to do so.

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

It is never not advantageous, as an individual, to graze as much as possible. Your "analysis" ignores that very basic, unarguable fact.

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I just can't stand world class stupid comments. "Apple doesn't innovate" is incontrovertible proof that you have no clue what you're talking about. It's not "2+2=5" level. It's "2+2=sbtaywbshd".

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (6 children)

If you haven't heard of it, you don't follow hardware at all. M1 Macbooks were one of the highest profile, most broadly respected hardware releases in years, at least. Even people who have no interest in Mac OS took serious notice.

If you don't know what Apple Silicon is, you're way too ignorant of the hardware space to comment on how innovative Apple is. Even extremely casual audiences have heard of it.

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 12 points 2 years ago

They already have all kinds of regulatory requirements around safety.

This was pretty clearly intended to make it harder to transition away from human drivers when human drivers don't make anything safer.

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 6 points 2 years ago (5 children)

The fact that the land is destroyed is literally the point.

It doesn't matter what time scale the land is destroyed in. At every individual point, you having your cattle eat more is better for you than you having your cattle eat less, because you individually starving your cattle completely still won't stop the destruction.

The fact that you somehow don't understand the very simple metaphor is not a failing of the metaphor.

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago

No, it isn't. It has never once happened.

Doing more demanding things to take advantage of better hardware is not "forced obsolescence". It's just progress.

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 15 points 2 years ago

It's not literally everyone, and people do have batteries die. I'm all for putting those call stations at regular intervals in public transit and other areas where it's plausible they'd be used.

I'm less sure the utility of serving the same functionality, but with a much more expensive robot. Realistically the entire purpose is to normalize people to seeing them as police officers, and I'm skeptical that that's a positive.

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Not making them real technicals is the reason the rule is toothless.

Make every effort to change any missed ones at the next whistle. Rescind the undeserved points like you would a 3 vs 2. Assess any missed ones after every game. Rescind any you need to. Kick players who get repeatedly caught out.

Then maybe it might stop. But no chance with your bullshit fake technical.

view more: ‹ prev next ›