Addv4

No, we just have far the many that are completely guided by their donations. The electorate can usually recognize them, if they even hear about them, which is getting harder given the sheer amount of money flowing around that doesn't like progressive candidates. Honestly, a good example to see it is probably the Michigan Senate primary, where Abdul El-Sayed is running against Haley Stevens, and Abdul (the very much more progressive candidate) is hopefully gonna win (wild amounts of money are being spent on Stevens, like at least 10 mil on ads thus far). The electorate isn't completely dumb, they just often have the wool pulled over their eyes by moneyed interest groups, which is why I'm always annoyed by candidates who clearly don't have central beliefs and can change their views to suit whatever they need, usually to the ones where they can get the most donations for their campaign.

Agreed, but he is a Nazi, so thinking isn't really a strong suit...

Yeah, but are we talking what the Democrats want, or the Republicans? Because it seems like Newsom can't really tell the difference.

Yep. He basically argued that being famous as a Nazi was already making it impossible to find work, and a mark on his record would just make it worse. And then mentioned the second kid on the way to sell the sob story.

Hopefully not coming off as too much of an ass, but normies largely won't care, as it doesn't immediately affect them. Knowing it's a bad thing requires a bit of understanding about an operating system that most people just don't know or care to learn about.

It's not that he flip flops between good or evil, he just flip flops with the change of the wind. A lot of the dislike of Newsom is that he doesn't really seem to have a backbone, and caves if something he supports at one point isn't seemingly politically advantageous.

Gotta say, thanks for the feather blade recommendation. I got some a little while ago, and they are a pretty nice improvement from the cheap blades I was using before.

Just hollow out a mountain, like the US did with Yucca mountain, plenty of storage (if you're politicians let it be used for its purpose) that is pretty easy to secure for centuries (and after that probably pretty easy as well). Assuming you close it up well when full, even future historians probably will have an idea that it's dangerous by the level of difficulty to just get into it.

Not trying to discount the issue, just point out that there generally are solutions to the issues around nuclear waste, just that politicians have mucked it up quite a bit in the past (especially in the US).

If you don't make people realize they are stupid and shitty, they often remain shitty (even if you literally tell them). Shunning sometimes works, and if it doesn't affect them, then their children are less likely to behave the same way. Empathy works if all parties are open to change, which unfortunately isn't a guarantee.

It's a very tiny frog.

Yup. Grew up listening to classic country, and while there were definitely stereotypes (he/she ran off and left the singer heartbroken/they died and left were heartbroken), they were obviously not formed by committee. This new stuff has no "soul" or underlying point, and is very obviously pushed because it targets a specific type of person.

My point is that while it's a pc, it's more positioned to be a console. If steam limited sales to one per customer and only for established steam accounts for the first runs (like they are already beginning to do for the steam deck and controllers), then they could force it to be more of a console. I do think it'll still be a bad launch, as the goal of the steam machine clearly is to put them in Xbox territory for regular consumers, and the current price and any other changes probably won't help that for new customers.