deleted by creator

It’s an incredibly far cry from the “all” he mentioned, and it isn’t close to the best or most desirable.

I’m well aware of what it has available, and it’s genuinely not good enough to get me to install Windows if they provided it for free. But the entire reason Gamepass exists is because they know it makes them more long term than buying your games.

You can’t.

Age verification is not compatible with any remotely acceptable version of the internet. It’s an obscene privacy violation in all cases by definition.

Any implementation short of a webcam watching you while you use the site is less than trivial to bypass with someone else’s ID while opening numerous massive tracking/security holes for no reason.

That means stuff they publish. Which, despite all their acquisitions, is consistently very mediocre. And because of the day one “free” status, almost always has bad extra monetization on top of it.

But you don’t get every single new game with GamePass, either. You get a mediocre set of stuff published by Microsoft with some occasional AA games and a random selection of indies, some of which are actually good, but also aren’t that expensive to just buy and own instead.

If you’re intrigued by the article and want to know more, Behave by Robert Sapolsky is heavy, but doesn’t assume a huge amount of prior knowledge and goes into a whole bunch of environmental (and genetic, and several other) factors that are meaningful predictors of violence and other problematic behavior. He approaches through the lens of a large variety of different fields through the book. Determined is also pretty good, and spends a meaningful portion of the end of the book specifically discussing the relevance to the legal system and other approaches to crime. I prefer Behave, because he doesn’t sell me on his core thesis that free will doesn’t exist in Determined, but either works on its own. They’re both right near the top of my list of favorite books on what makes us tick.

See also Door in the Face, which is very similar and one of the ways anchoring is used in practice.

Apparently I phrased it badly because every vote on it is down lol.

So it’s probably my bad.

That’s literally my point.

Most people know that email isn’t tied to a provider app.

My point is just that they have very carefully considered what actions are and aren’t legal, and you’re participating in a sport where one of the primary methods of victory is to do so much brain damage that their brain loses control of their body.

You can and should continue to attempt to evolve the rules within reason, but it doesn’t seem right to attack someone for actions the rules allow for in the context of a sport where damage is the goal. It’s inherently different than something like basketball, where you can try to hurt someone (or recklessly risk injury) in a way that isn’t really a basketball play but isn’t specifically regulated. In MMA, trying to hurt someone is one of the goals.

If the rules allow it, people will try to use it.

IDK how I feel about rules and what the specific rule change allowing it was. I definitely don’t love shots that close to the groin.

But the sport is trying to hurt your opponent. Blows trying to wear them down are a deliberate part of it. I think there’s a level of “if the rules allow it, it’s fair game”. Is an elbow to the butthole actually worse than a knee to the face that knocks you into next week? You’re participating in a brutal sport.

Email providers absolutely block other email providers who abuse their system.

It’s also not even close to how email works and plenty of people use email apps that aren’t tied to a provider.

If they actually get implemented? There’s a good chance your prices from anything that touches China will increase by most of the listed tariffs. Since it will disproportionately affect China, it’s possible some stuff will eventually pull manufacturing somewhere else, but that isn’t going to happen overnight. Moving manufacturing is not fast and no one else is equipped to just flip a switch and take over for them.

Your income will likely not increase 60%.

Than you had a mediocre education.

That’s not how competent teachers work.

Edit: was too asshole-y. He can’t control bad teachers unwilling to admit their mistakes.

I don’t read every series every six months. That’s still pretty frequent. But there are some favorites (Karen Rose, some of CJ Archer, probably will be a bunch of Sanderson) where, when I don’t have anything immediately queued up and am looking for my next read, I see them and decide to dive in again.

I think it’s probably Andrew Child being a co-author now. But the more recent ones have conspiracies where technology plays a much more central role, because that’s where the world has evolved. Reacher is still Reacher and a borderline technophobe, but it wouldn’t make a whole lot of sense for modern bad actors to ignore the internet and I think he covers it in a pretty fair way.

A test that punishes a correct answer is wrong, and yes, it’s entirely reasonable and not uncommon to have multiple valid answers that are accepted, or for a decent teacher to have a student point out “this answer was right” and allow anyone else who gave the same answer to get the points back as well.

No it wouldn’t. Ban is exactly, perfectly, correct.

If you considered taking points off for ban on a multiple choice test you’re a bad teacher with a flawed understanding of the language.

You’re missing the point. I’m saying that there are contrived situations where there are privileges that are not access that you could suspend without the word “ban” making sense.

Any case where you block access to anything for any length of time can correctly be defined as a ban.

A temporary ban is a ban. Nowhere in your definition is length of time, because a ban can be for any length of time.

You could suspend specific privileges within a club, without suspending all access. That’s the only case where suspension would make sense where ban would be odd.

You can’t “suspend” access when access is available to the general public. You suspend a privilege that’s not the default. It doesn’t make sense to suspend something that is the default. Taking away access requires proactively preventing it, not removing a membership.