I'm hoping they move entirely to Type-C and establish HDMI-over-type-C, audio accessory mode, Ethernet alternative mode, and high-speed charging in the base standard.
as it became obvious that it's a bad idea to allow someone to plug something in that can be both a storage device and a keyboard (it doesn't take much imagination to see how that can be a security problem.)
We used to have key-capture devices like that to slip between an AT keyboard and the port.
There's a reason I described voting machine standards in which no physical electrical port may be accessible between polling begin and end of polling day after generating proof of ballot set. We're going to have to go into glorious battle to force vendors to accept these standards, but I'm ready for that.
The latency for USB 3 is something like 30 microseconds. Some people are asking how anyone achieves that because they're only able to get as low as 60-70 microseconds.
That's like 250-550 signals per 60fps frame. Your input lag is 1/500th of an NTSC frame.
Unless USB4 cables will have a ton of insulation, to prevent the outside world from interfering with it. Or will it have more error checking thus this 40Gbs is just a theoretical speed, and it is actually much slower in real life, because it keeps on on having data loss.
You have to overcome miller capacitance in the cables, so the voltages are extremely-low.
What you do, you twist pairs of signal-carrying cables around each other, and you raise a signal cable by a few millivolts to signal. The signal pair will be e.g. 5mV apart. If you get EMI, then each cable will raise its voltage state equally, so you go from 0mV/5mV to 27mV/32mV. That's still 5mV, it's still signal, it's still clear.
There are probably many, and this is one which is endorsed by the central authority.
I wish they'd have included PKI as part of the FIDO standards. Those security keys would have been amazing for that. Plug in and read your e-mail, all messages end-to-end encrypted.
Would reduce domestic air travel in favor of high-speed rail. Electric planes are a possibility, but...electric planes are a difficult engineering task due to weight and power requirements. There are some promising ones out there, and the engineering issue of heat is easy enough (big radiator, come on, it's a plane).
You won't see trans-Atlantic in the next decade; it'll be more like from south California to north California. I'm not sure about a massive rail network in 10 years, either; we should have halorail by 35 years out, possibly 25 years.
The Methan the cows produce would also be produced if the plants they eat would simply rot
Actually, when the plants simply rot, they decompose in a high-oxygen atmosphere. When you combine methane with oxygen, you get heat, H2O, and CO2. Methane is CH4, hence C (CO2) and H (H2O).
Decomposition to methane provides less energy than decomposition to water and carbon dioxide. Anaerobic fermentation produces methane because of a dearth of oxygen: at least we can pull some energy from the material, but not as much as if we had oxygen. Cows don't pump oxygen into their digestive tracts, as only the microbes there really derive energy from fermentation.
Ruminants also have somewhat unique microbes which produce high amounts of methane during anaerobic fermentation. Many other animals don't vent methane from their digestive tracts in such a proportion. Basically, the archaea microbes in ruminants produce a lot more methane per pound of food processed (and volume of gas produced) in the animal's digestion as a whole than, say, in a human.
Messing with the microbes involved can alter this a bit.
You also seem to think this amendment would be retroactive, but such wording stands near-zero chance of being passed
The current President publicly suggested he could do so as an executive order. He was rebuked. People have argued that making it retroactive is important and should be done. We CURRENTLY remove citizenship if naturalized citizens break laws, somehow, which is ridiculous and seems unconstitutional. Some of the folks we've recently deported were stripped of citizenship and then declared illegal immigrants.
You're right: a constitutional amendment would be needed to make children of illegal immigrants ineligible for birthright citizenship.
My point on that section was that the Constitution actually doesn't confer Congress the power to regulate immigration--i.e. there is no Constitutional provision that supports the existence of an "illegal immigrant".
The Supreme Court agrees, and says that a sovereign nation naturally has that power, whether it's in the Constitution or not, so Congress has it even though the Constitution doesn't give Congress that power.
Every time a conservative talks about illegal immigration the Left declares said conservative a racist, xenophobe, and against all immigration.
Yes, I'm aware that's a problem. Liberals think the Conservatives are all racist white nationalists. We have a lot of those, but it's certainly a minority of conservatives. Our disagreements remain, but that isn't the disagreement at hand, although it appears to be to a lot of folks on the liberal side--it's one of those things that looks different from the outside looking in, but also from the inside looking out.
Some factions of conservatives want to get rid of birthright citizenship for the offspring of illegal immigrants.
We have people who were born here, lived here all their lives, and are citizens of nowhere but the United States. Their parents came here illegally. They didn't cause any trouble, and they didn't come and have kids and go back home to collect welfare from abroad. 30 years an American citizen and you want to strip their birth right because they were born to farm workers who snuck across the border from Mexico and worked hard?
I have a simpler objection, however.
The Constitution gives Congress the power to establish uniform rules of naturalization, wherein "naturalization" confers natural citizenship to a person. That isn't the power of control over immigration--the Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution does not grant the Congress the power to control immigration, and instead argues that this power is an "obvious" right of a sovereign nation. That's an objectionable argument, but it's what we've established.
The Constitution also clearly contains this gem:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This is some of the clearest legal language I have ever seen.
Notice that it defines all persons born or naturalized (this is part of the support for my assertion that naturalization doesn't mean "allowed to reside") are citizens. Someone said that people who are here illegally aren't "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, but then we wouldn't have jurisdiction to arrest and deport them for being here illegally.
Notice the use of "Citizens" and "Persons" to describe different things.
First: clearly this Constitutional provision does in fact command that all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction are Citizens of the United States. "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" would necessarily incorporate US Territories, but we somehow only granted that to Puerto Rico by treaty.
Second--and here's the big thing--no provision of the United States Constitution grants the Congress, the Executive, or the very body of the People of the United States the power to forcefully revoke Citizenship.
This is important.
It is a frightening thing for the Government to grant you rights but also to be allowed to take them from you. What value does Citizenship carry if it can be taken away?
Once you are a Citizen, you can be convicted of Treason--as a Citizen of the United States, facing the legal repercussions a Citizen of the United States must face for Treason. We don't get to take away your citizenship if you're a special type of citizen, because obviously you were never really a citizen but a subject granted additional privileges; and if that's the case, then you can't be guilty of Treason.
What if they integrated something with e.g. Visual Studio Code, such that as you program, it starts figuring out what you want to do? You start giving it an explanation of how you want various pieces to interface and it starts making suggestions about improving your data structures, interfaces, various options for design patterns.
In other words: a person like me, who knows quite a bit about program architecture and can competently do anything with programming languages but isn't a programmer, can use that theoretical knowledge--the type you can sort of put together in a few weeks--to dive straight into programming large, complex projects, and have an architect at hand to help get it right.
I know programmers with large amounts of experience, with decades of time spent looking at good and bad programming practice, with an understanding of why software development fails and how to make it work. I've brought things up about defects in the SDLC at programming shops that were on fire all the time, and they've been able to take these things and extend them, to fill in the gaps in my knowledge, because they already well-understand these things. Less-experienced programmers are able to take instruction well, and so we put these folks in charge.
Now imagine the programming hobbyist, never to gain that experience, and now you create an AI tool that can proposition them along those lines. Maybe it's not always right--and maybe we know that. Maybe we take what it gives and modify it sometimes, and it considers, and analyzes, and provides further comment.
Do you think there is so little nuance in programming that describing the end product as a rough architectural overview can spit out exactly what the programmer and the customer intend?
Building a program is a process of designing, implementing, and responding to the process of development itself. Like any project, we have an overview, an idea; and as we build each piece, we make small or large adjustments to how we're going to build the other pieces.
The AI, as the lone programmer, can perhaps generate a complete application in minutes; but it cannot share the development process with the programmer, the customer, the user, during those minutes. The AI is essentially now the isolated programmer who takes a half-page idea and creates a product, and then gets told their product isn't what the customer expected and isn't what they want; and even then, the programmer might think of further features and integrations, and adjust the architecture to allow for extension later.
What if instead of running to this idea that completely-custom products--and let's be frank: if you needed WORDPRESS or LINUX, you'd download a copy, so yes every new program is a completely-custom product--should appear from the whim of the mind in seconds or minutes, we considered extending the power of the developer? What if we gave less-skilled developers a way to perform the process to complete customization, with a machine standing in as a highly-skilled advisor who helps speed the process along?
What if the rubber duck was one whole hell of a lot smarter than you, even if it didn't fully understand what precisely you intended to accomplish?
You know, a while back I came across something describing people as white, black, yellow, brown, and red, which seems pretty even-handed in context. There are other words used as slurs which draw considerably more attention, so it's a bit non-obvious that yellow might be offensive.
This is also why I find it odd people call blacks coloreds. Folks are in general pretty colorful.
A while back, a white supremacist got a DNA test and then announced to everyone that he had discovered he was an octoroon. What the hell kind of a word is that even?
The whole thing is very strange. What bothers me, really, is when somebody starts talking about getting rid of birthright citizenship because people born here aren't "real Americans" unless they're born from the right lineage. That's when you get the torches and pitchforks out.
It's more than that. Think about it: we take safety seriously, which is why it's illegal to ever leave your house and cars are banned from our society.
Alternatively, they could generate an encryption key and keep it in the incognito browser's memory. Use operating system APIs to pin that page to memory (standard for encryption keys) so it doesn't go to swap. Encrypt and encode filenames, and stream the files to disk encrypted. Mark the whole thing as temporary.
It leaves evidence that you used incognito mode, but only gibberish about what actually happened in incognito mode.
That actually leads to a market failure. Currency becomes more-valuable, thus people store currency to retain value. There's less and less currency, and wages must go down so people receive less currency. Currency quickly becomes scarce, and you get a recession--that's what 1930, 2008, and the others were.
Debt compounds this. If a house requires 30,000 hours of total aggregate labor--producing all materials, shipping them, assembling them, etc.--then a middle-income person must work 15 years to purchase a house. That means a loan with a minimum 15-year term. The bank's interest is in having greater purchasing power at the end of the loan term, so the worker must pay more than the house is worth. The home itself will also lose currency price. As a result, people's loans will come at a fixed rate as usual, while their income decreases, making the loan an ever-larger part of their income--or else they simply will never be able to purchase houses and cars.
In practice, it's more like 10,000 of aggregate labor, and you spend 1/3 of your income on your mortgage, so it's 15 years for the cost of the house and another 5 years or so for the cost of the mortgage. We buy bigger houses than that these days, so we stretch it out across more years; a lot goes to interest, still, in a 30-year versus a 15-year fixed.
Inflation, fiat, and debt solve most of these problems because they're inherently matters of liquidity and money. We use a 2% inflation target, but 5% would be a better target.
Pretty much yeah, that's how we issue most currency. Wealth is production, so if there's 10% more stuff we need 10% more currency; then if you want 2% inflation, your 110% of currency must be 112.2% of currency.
There's actually a problem in here: we make 110% as much stuff but have only 102% as many people, so there's 108% as much stuff per person and 110% as many dollars per person. Then we raise minimum wage by the 2% inflation and the poorest worker gets 102% as many dollars instead of 110% as many dollars.
True, although my point was the context of violence is important. Violent actions are pretty banal; violence in an emotional context is social training.
There's a point where it stops being just a game and becomes a simulated experience. Mature minds can handle that; undeveloped minds don't yet have experience in emotional context, and so can handle blowing up video game characters, but can't handle heavy moral judgments while blowing up video game characters.
They'll just blame everyone but themselves for their own stupidity; then when it happens to them they'll complain that the government is obviously at fault because all its regulation pushed people into the unregulated mess.
There's also this thing we saw in 2008 where a bunch of "financial innovation" was happening. Apparently "financial innovation" is just getting around all the safety rails the regulators put up so shit like this doesn't happen.
Yeah, there's a near-perfect correlation, but not necessarily.
Violent titles tend to have violence. Do you brutally murder a civilian? Do you spare someone begging for their life? Do you intervene to save an innocent? Your main tool is murder.
Mature content is developed for mature people. Adults have well-developed social senses, so they can readily ingest things that play on that. Do you blackmail that sleezy bitch so she screws you behind the salon? Do you murder a bunch of worthless guards while they beg to be let to see their children again? Do you kill the nobility off slowly while they cower in fear just so you can see the look in their eyes after they've trampled the people so badly? Do you laugh while you're doing it?
Mature content soaks you in immorality. As a fantasy, a story can take you into the life of a pristine hero, it can face you with difficult realities of moral decisions, or it can steep you in the kind of disturbed indulgence denied by day-to-day civility. The further you get along this scale, the more mature we label it.
Paul Krugman once said the Great Depression of 2008 was caused by a bunch of financial innovators whose main innovation was figuring out how to get around the safety rails we'd set up.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm hoping they move entirely to Type-C and establish HDMI-over-type-C, audio accessory mode, Ethernet alternative mode, and high-speed charging in the base standard.
as it became obvious that it's a bad idea to allow someone to plug something in that can be both a storage device and a keyboard (it doesn't take much imagination to see how that can be a security problem.)
We used to have key-capture devices like that to slip between an AT keyboard and the port.
There's a reason I described voting machine standards in which no physical electrical port may be accessible between polling begin and end of polling day after generating proof of ballot set. We're going to have to go into glorious battle to force vendors to accept these standards, but I'm ready for that.
The latency for USB 3 is something like 30 microseconds. Some people are asking how anyone achieves that because they're only able to get as low as 60-70 microseconds.
That's like 250-550 signals per 60fps frame. Your input lag is 1/500th of an NTSC frame.
Unless USB4 cables will have a ton of insulation, to prevent the outside world from interfering with it. Or will it have more error checking thus this 40Gbs is just a theoretical speed, and it is actually much slower in real life, because it keeps on on having data loss.
You have to overcome miller capacitance in the cables, so the voltages are extremely-low.
What you do, you twist pairs of signal-carrying cables around each other, and you raise a signal cable by a few millivolts to signal. The signal pair will be e.g. 5mV apart. If you get EMI, then each cable will raise its voltage state equally, so you go from 0mV/5mV to 27mV/32mV. That's still 5mV, it's still signal, it's still clear.
Self-shielding.
There are probably many, and this is one which is endorsed by the central authority.
I wish they'd have included PKI as part of the FIDO standards. Those security keys would have been amazing for that. Plug in and read your e-mail, all messages end-to-end encrypted.
Would reduce domestic air travel in favor of high-speed rail. Electric planes are a possibility, but...electric planes are a difficult engineering task due to weight and power requirements. There are some promising ones out there, and the engineering issue of heat is easy enough (big radiator, come on, it's a plane).
You won't see trans-Atlantic in the next decade; it'll be more like from south California to north California. I'm not sure about a massive rail network in 10 years, either; we should have halorail by 35 years out, possibly 25 years.
The Methan the cows produce would also be produced if the plants they eat would simply rot
Actually, when the plants simply rot, they decompose in a high-oxygen atmosphere. When you combine methane with oxygen, you get heat, H2O, and CO2. Methane is CH4, hence C (CO2) and H (H2O).
Decomposition to methane provides less energy than decomposition to water and carbon dioxide. Anaerobic fermentation produces methane because of a dearth of oxygen: at least we can pull some energy from the material, but not as much as if we had oxygen. Cows don't pump oxygen into their digestive tracts, as only the microbes there really derive energy from fermentation.
Ruminants also have somewhat unique microbes which produce high amounts of methane during anaerobic fermentation. Many other animals don't vent methane from their digestive tracts in such a proportion. Basically, the archaea microbes in ruminants produce a lot more methane per pound of food processed (and volume of gas produced) in the animal's digestion as a whole than, say, in a human.
Messing with the microbes involved can alter this a bit.
You also seem to think this amendment would be retroactive, but such wording stands near-zero chance of being passed
The current President publicly suggested he could do so as an executive order. He was rebuked. People have argued that making it retroactive is important and should be done. We CURRENTLY remove citizenship if naturalized citizens break laws, somehow, which is ridiculous and seems unconstitutional. Some of the folks we've recently deported were stripped of citizenship and then declared illegal immigrants.
You're right: a constitutional amendment would be needed to make children of illegal immigrants ineligible for birthright citizenship.
My point on that section was that the Constitution actually doesn't confer Congress the power to regulate immigration--i.e. there is no Constitutional provision that supports the existence of an "illegal immigrant".
The Supreme Court agrees, and says that a sovereign nation naturally has that power, whether it's in the Constitution or not, so Congress has it even though the Constitution doesn't give Congress that power.
Every time a conservative talks about illegal immigration the Left declares said conservative a racist, xenophobe, and against all immigration.
Yes, I'm aware that's a problem. Liberals think the Conservatives are all racist white nationalists. We have a lot of those, but it's certainly a minority of conservatives. Our disagreements remain, but that isn't the disagreement at hand, although it appears to be to a lot of folks on the liberal side--it's one of those things that looks different from the outside looking in, but also from the inside looking out.
Some factions of conservatives want to get rid of birthright citizenship for the offspring of illegal immigrants.
We have people who were born here, lived here all their lives, and are citizens of nowhere but the United States. Their parents came here illegally. They didn't cause any trouble, and they didn't come and have kids and go back home to collect welfare from abroad. 30 years an American citizen and you want to strip their birth right because they were born to farm workers who snuck across the border from Mexico and worked hard?
I have a simpler objection, however.
The Constitution gives Congress the power to establish uniform rules of naturalization, wherein "naturalization" confers natural citizenship to a person. That isn't the power of control over immigration--the Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution does not grant the Congress the power to control immigration, and instead argues that this power is an "obvious" right of a sovereign nation. That's an objectionable argument, but it's what we've established.
The Constitution also clearly contains this gem:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This is some of the clearest legal language I have ever seen.
Notice that it defines all persons born or naturalized (this is part of the support for my assertion that naturalization doesn't mean "allowed to reside") are citizens. Someone said that people who are here illegally aren't "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, but then we wouldn't have jurisdiction to arrest and deport them for being here illegally.
Notice the use of "Citizens" and "Persons" to describe different things.
First: clearly this Constitutional provision does in fact command that all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction are Citizens of the United States. "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" would necessarily incorporate US Territories, but we somehow only granted that to Puerto Rico by treaty.
Second--and here's the big thing--no provision of the United States Constitution grants the Congress, the Executive, or the very body of the People of the United States the power to forcefully revoke Citizenship.
This is important.
It is a frightening thing for the Government to grant you rights but also to be allowed to take them from you. What value does Citizenship carry if it can be taken away?
Once you are a Citizen, you can be convicted of Treason--as a Citizen of the United States, facing the legal repercussions a Citizen of the United States must face for Treason. We don't get to take away your citizenship if you're a special type of citizen, because obviously you were never really a citizen but a subject granted additional privileges; and if that's the case, then you can't be guilty of Treason.
That is the most-extreme example I
The "democratize" buzzword here appears to not have connection to anything. There's no sort of group social decision making involved.
What if they integrated something with e.g. Visual Studio Code, such that as you program, it starts figuring out what you want to do? You start giving it an explanation of how you want various pieces to interface and it starts making suggestions about improving your data structures, interfaces, various options for design patterns.
In other words: a person like me, who knows quite a bit about program architecture and can competently do anything with programming languages but isn't a programmer, can use that theoretical knowledge--the type you can sort of put together in a few weeks--to dive straight into programming large, complex projects, and have an architect at hand to help get it right.
I know programmers with large amounts of experience, with decades of time spent looking at good and bad programming practice, with an understanding of why software development fails and how to make it work. I've brought things up about defects in the SDLC at programming shops that were on fire all the time, and they've been able to take these things and extend them, to fill in the gaps in my knowledge, because they already well-understand these things. Less-experienced programmers are able to take instruction well, and so we put these folks in charge.
Now imagine the programming hobbyist, never to gain that experience, and now you create an AI tool that can proposition them along those lines. Maybe it's not always right--and maybe we know that. Maybe we take what it gives and modify it sometimes, and it considers, and analyzes, and provides further comment.
Do you think there is so little nuance in programming that describing the end product as a rough architectural overview can spit out exactly what the programmer and the customer intend?
Building a program is a process of designing, implementing, and responding to the process of development itself. Like any project, we have an overview, an idea; and as we build each piece, we make small or large adjustments to how we're going to build the other pieces.
The AI, as the lone programmer, can perhaps generate a complete application in minutes; but it cannot share the development process with the programmer, the customer, the user, during those minutes. The AI is essentially now the isolated programmer who takes a half-page idea and creates a product, and then gets told their product isn't what the customer expected and isn't what they want; and even then, the programmer might think of further features and integrations, and adjust the architecture to allow for extension later.
What if instead of running to this idea that completely-custom products--and let's be frank: if you needed WORDPRESS or LINUX, you'd download a copy, so yes every new program is a completely-custom product--should appear from the whim of the mind in seconds or minutes, we considered extending the power of the developer? What if we gave less-skilled developers a way to perform the process to complete customization, with a machine standing in as a highly-skilled advisor who helps speed the process along?
What if the rubber duck was one whole hell of a lot smarter than you, even if it didn't fully understand what precisely you intended to accomplish?
You know, a while back I came across something describing people as white, black, yellow, brown, and red, which seems pretty even-handed in context. There are other words used as slurs which draw considerably more attention, so it's a bit non-obvious that yellow might be offensive.
This is also why I find it odd people call blacks coloreds. Folks are in general pretty colorful.
A while back, a white supremacist got a DNA test and then announced to everyone that he had discovered he was an octoroon. What the hell kind of a word is that even?
The whole thing is very strange. What bothers me, really, is when somebody starts talking about getting rid of birthright citizenship because people born here aren't "real Americans" unless they're born from the right lineage. That's when you get the torches and pitchforks out.
Poses no hazards to astronauts or spacecraft traveling at less than a significant fraction of the speed of light.
A proton can hit with the impact force of a baseball traveling at over one hundred miles per hour.
It's more than that. Think about it: we take safety seriously, which is why it's illegal to ever leave your house and cars are banned from our society.
Risk. Everything is about risk.
Alternatively, they could generate an encryption key and keep it in the incognito browser's memory. Use operating system APIs to pin that page to memory (standard for encryption keys) so it doesn't go to swap. Encrypt and encode filenames, and stream the files to disk encrypted. Mark the whole thing as temporary.
It leaves evidence that you used incognito mode, but only gibberish about what actually happened in incognito mode.
That actually leads to a market failure. Currency becomes more-valuable, thus people store currency to retain value. There's less and less currency, and wages must go down so people receive less currency. Currency quickly becomes scarce, and you get a recession--that's what 1930, 2008, and the others were.
Debt compounds this. If a house requires 30,000 hours of total aggregate labor--producing all materials, shipping them, assembling them, etc.--then a middle-income person must work 15 years to purchase a house. That means a loan with a minimum 15-year term. The bank's interest is in having greater purchasing power at the end of the loan term, so the worker must pay more than the house is worth. The home itself will also lose currency price. As a result, people's loans will come at a fixed rate as usual, while their income decreases, making the loan an ever-larger part of their income--or else they simply will never be able to purchase houses and cars.
In practice, it's more like 10,000 of aggregate labor, and you spend 1/3 of your income on your mortgage, so it's 15 years for the cost of the house and another 5 years or so for the cost of the mortgage. We buy bigger houses than that these days, so we stretch it out across more years; a lot goes to interest, still, in a 30-year versus a 15-year fixed.
Inflation, fiat, and debt solve most of these problems because they're inherently matters of liquidity and money. We use a 2% inflation target, but 5% would be a better target.
Pretty much yeah, that's how we issue most currency. Wealth is production, so if there's 10% more stuff we need 10% more currency; then if you want 2% inflation, your 110% of currency must be 112.2% of currency.
There's actually a problem in here: we make 110% as much stuff but have only 102% as many people, so there's 108% as much stuff per person and 110% as many dollars per person. Then we raise minimum wage by the 2% inflation and the poorest worker gets 102% as many dollars instead of 110% as many dollars.
True, although my point was the context of violence is important. Violent actions are pretty banal; violence in an emotional context is social training.
There's a point where it stops being just a game and becomes a simulated experience. Mature minds can handle that; undeveloped minds don't yet have experience in emotional context, and so can handle blowing up video game characters, but can't handle heavy moral judgments while blowing up video game characters.
Pretty much. The health insurers don't classify vaporized nicotine juice as tobacco.
They'll just blame everyone but themselves for their own stupidity; then when it happens to them they'll complain that the government is obviously at fault because all its regulation pushed people into the unregulated mess.
That's basically what happened. We have all kinds of protections against regulated bank collapses, but not against this.
There's also this thing we saw in 2008 where a bunch of "financial innovation" was happening. Apparently "financial innovation" is just getting around all the safety rails the regulators put up so shit like this doesn't happen.
Yeah, there's a near-perfect correlation, but not necessarily.
Violent titles tend to have violence. Do you brutally murder a civilian? Do you spare someone begging for their life? Do you intervene to save an innocent? Your main tool is murder.
Mature content is developed for mature people. Adults have well-developed social senses, so they can readily ingest things that play on that. Do you blackmail that sleezy bitch so she screws you behind the salon? Do you murder a bunch of worthless guards while they beg to be let to see their children again? Do you kill the nobility off slowly while they cower in fear just so you can see the look in their eyes after they've trampled the people so badly? Do you laugh while you're doing it?
Mature content soaks you in immorality. As a fantasy, a story can take you into the life of a pristine hero, it can face you with difficult realities of moral decisions, or it can steep you in the kind of disturbed indulgence denied by day-to-day civility. The further you get along this scale, the more mature we label it.
I'm waiting for them to just move to AbiWord as an OOWriter replacement.
Paul Krugman once said the Great Depression of 2008 was caused by a bunch of financial innovators whose main innovation was figuring out how to get around the safety rails we'd set up.