Yeah, lab work has the cultural cachet of STEM and knowledge work, but looks a lot more like manual labor in practice. One of the lab planners at my current employer switched careers after getting her master's because pipetting thousands upon thousands of well plates for her research gave her severe repetitive stress injuries that made it unbearable to continue working in the lab.

Biotech has another problem, in that the VC money --and therefore the job market -- is concentrated in a small number of HCOL metros. A friend of mine founded a startup out here in the Midwest, and he struggles to attract enough funding to retain staff who are constantly being lured away to the coasts by better-funded firms offering better pay, even though that money wouldn't go nearly as far in a place like SF or Boston compared to Kansas City.

If people want to live in a fully-automated luxury space communist utopia where everyone is free from want and able to make and release games for free as passion projects, that's great, and a worthy goal to work towards, but promoting piracy on principle without concern for how developers will be supported during their work in the context of our current capitalist society is somewhere between naive at best and self-serving rationalization at worst.

Also that example of Tomb Raider is really disingenuous, the level of fidelity in the environments is night and day between the two as well as the quality of animation. In your example the only real thing you can tell is the skin shaders, which are not even close between the two, SotTR really sells that you are looking at real people, something the 2013 game approached but never really achieved IMO.

I've noticed this a lot in comparisons claiming to show that graphics quality has regressed (either over time, or from an earlier demo reel of the same game), where the person trying to make the point cherry-picks drastically different lighting or atmospheric scenarios that put the later image in a bad light. Like, no crap Lara looks better in the 2013 image, she's lit from an angle that highlights her facial features and inexplicably wearing makeup while in the midst of a jungle adventure. The Shadow of the Tomb Raider image, by comparison, is of a dirty-faced Lara pulling a face while being lit from an unflattering angle by campfire. Compositionally, of course the first image is prettier -- but as you point out, the lack of effective subsurface scattering in the Tomb Raider 2013 skin shader is painfully apparent versus SofTR. The newer image is more realistic, even if it's not as flattering.

I'm willing to be surprised by it, but I'm not optimistic for Starfield. What I've seen of it so far looks mainly like they grafted chunks of No Man's Sky onto a Bethesda Fallout game and are trying hard to pitch it as The Next Big Thing. Frankly, I'd much rather have the next mainline Elder Scrolls game instead, but at this rate I'm going to be 40 before I get to play a sequel to a game that came out in my 20s.

In the AEC field we have Bluebeam as a de facto industry standard for PDFs, and it's vastly superior to Acrobat in every way for our typical use cases. I imagine it's a bit harder in other industries, though.

Along the lines of @AnonStoleMyPants -- the trouble with longtermism and effective altruism generally is that, unlike more established religion, it's become en vogue specifically amongst the billionaire class, specifically because it's essentially just a permission structure for them to hoard stacks of cash and prioritize the hypothetical needs of their preferred utopian vision of the future over the actual needs of the present. Religions tend to have a mechanism (tithing, zakat, mitzvah, dana, etc.) for redistributing wealth from the well-off members of the faith towards the needy in an immediate way. Said mechanism may often be suborned by the religious elite or unenforced by some sects, but at least it's there.

Unlike those religions, effective altruism specifically encourages wealthy people to keep their wealth to themselves, so that they can use their billionaire galaxy brains to more effectively direct that capital towards long-term good. If, as they see it, Mars colonies tomorrow will help more people than healthcare or UBI or solar farms will today, then they have not just a desire, but a moral obligation to spend their money designing Mars rockets instead of paying more taxes or building green infrastructure. And if having a longtermist in charge of said Mars colony will more effectively safeguard the future of those colonists, then by golly, they have a moral obligation to become the autocratic monarch of Mars! All the dirty poors desperate for help today aren't worth the resources relative to the net good possible by securing that utopian future they imagine.

I have no issue at all with utility bots (AutoMod-style assistants, summarizers, unit conversion aids, RemindMe!, etc.) and honestly, novelty comment bots don't bother me much either as long as they're not drowning out actual conversation. I'm less tolerant of bots posting links and content, though.

I'm fond of Cheeto Benito myself.

I think this is a more cynical view than can be supported by facts in evidence. For sure, in Ye Olden Days when the parties weren't actually all that far apart, there was some level of building up a bogeyman to get out the base while everybody was friendly behind closed doors. But especially in the era of Trump, I think most congressional Democrats (leftwards of Machin and Sinema, at least) are genuinely afraid of what a second Trump turn would mean for the country, not least because it would likely mean a practical end to democratic processes at the federal level. Hard to benefit from the bogeyman when the bogeyman has made your presence in politics impossible-to-illegal.

I mean, who's to say that the plot of STEINS;GATE isn't real and ~~SERN~~ CERN isn't about to unravel the fabric of reality with time travel paradoxes?

Does it, though? In the past the argument was that aggregators like Google were stealing site traffic by showing large excepts or summaries of the articles they linked to, and I could understand that, but the new Canadian law seems like it wants to attach a fee to simply showing a hyperlink. That's fundamentally contrary to the way that the Internet was designed to work, and as the examples of blocking in the article demonstrate, it seems to confuse who is providing value to who in this specific instance. I take issue with the big platforms co-opting the open Internet, but penalizing them for showing links off their sites to news organizations seems to be the exact wrong thing to do about it.

We weren’t better off in the 50s

That's the thing, though -- in these sorts of communities, they arguably were. As the old lead mining heartland of the nation, the southern half of Missouri isn't far off rural West Virginia coal country or the Rust Belt in terms of post-industrial decline. I have my own theories about why that area is the way it is (and I suspect endemic low-level exposure to lead mining waste might be part of it) but at a fundamental level it's not surprising that these communities would try to reach back into a mostly-imaginary past to reclaim the trappings of middle-class comfort. The present just doesn't have anything to offer them.