Gives new meaning to ‘speak softly and carry a big stick’.

They claim $100 B in ‘losses’ to this kind of game. Unless they’re actually running red on their books what they really mean is ‘we think we should make at least $100 B more per year’.

I’m sure that the vast majority of that would go directly to the front of house employees they’re pinning this on too, definitely not to the execs and share holders…

As ready as they’ll ever be, which probably isn’t all that ready in absolute terms…

So pretty much one of those smart speaker things with a pin on it, for hundreds of $$$ and a subscription to boot? What a great idea…

I’ve never heard of this thing, is it supposed to do what the analyze this picture or ID the song playing features of my phone already could do, or is there something novel I’m missing?

Speak for yourself, I rather like potatoes, or as the French call them ‘pomme de terre’ which if I recall would literally translate as ‘apple of earth’.

Ignoring people who sit about complaining ‘both sides/it doesn’t matter/stay home/reeeee’ who care so little about things they won’t take an action as simple as voting. Yet you have all the time in the world to go online and gripe about the one viable party that’s marginally closer to your purported ideals without spending a breath on the party actively hostile to everything these supposed leftists want.

Frankly fo my time, best gaming series ever. With a few exceptions each one stands alone as it’s own story, but there are the ever present threads that in some cases turned into almost easter-egg items in a given game. Where are Biggs and Wedge going to show up this time? Can I get my hands on a choccobo? Hey Cid, thanks for the airship…

A vote is a vote, but that’s not the solution I spoke of. Rather than trying to push people to disengage or vote 3rd party, neither of which will make any meaningful difference to the situation (even in the million to one chance some 3rd party did get elected, they’re a politician and will do politician things), why not take the situation into your own hands and create the company run by someone who won’t behave like a capitalist?

Create the next Google, but you can be the one who really follows the “don’t be evil” mantra and in the process usurp the throne from the capitalists who have gone wrong. Once that is done you have the ability to simply hand the reigns over to anyone working there and walk away knowing the problem of that particular market is now solved.

The amusing thing about the people who complain that capitalists are the root of all problems, they don’t make an effort to correct it.

Take the situation of this story. If your ideals are pure and would have the popular support of a critical mass of people, there is absolutely not one thing preventing the establishment of a company, chartered as a public good corporation, and ran as a non-profit entity to provide these kind of material goods for people at cost, or if someone is willing to subsidise the production even less so if you like. You could even get the seed money from a crowd sourced campaign, or so called ‘angel investors’ no strings attached, no ownership stakes to distribute.

Some of those are absurdly strong. I have wild grapes in my yard that got ahold of an old clothesline with 6 lines across it. Now I didn’t use said line so figured just let it be to feed the birds and such. Turns out it got thick enough that one winter when a particularly heavy snow came through the weight of the snow on the vine mat was enough to bend in the poles that are a good 3 inches thick.

The whole concept of corporations as distinct eternal entities could use a reworking. From copyright, to liability, to corporate ‘speech’, it all shields to interests of the well heeled from responsibility for their actions. Some level of separation from an individual is needed or no small business would ever date take the risk of starting up, but at a certain point somebody needs to own the actions of it. How we define that is beyond me, but for now I’d take removing non-breathing entities from the voting pool and political funding as a start.

They as a candidate don’t, the campaign as a whole is important to support though. Particularly if it can be shown that the funds come from small doners it shows popular support. I would rather see a crowd funded candidate with millions of $5 donations than a handful of super-pacs funneling dark money into it. It’s exactly the kind of problem that citizens United caused that we need to revert to show the popular will of the people.

There are some use cases other than web page compatibility. One for me is in dealing with firewall and proxy policy, if the agent is a browser and comes in on specified explicit ports then force authentication, things of that nature.

Then when the 5th largest economy in the world decides they don’t feel like playing with you anymore you get to find out what a budget deficit really means.

He knows just how badly she was able to pull his strings and play him like a puppet. Time and time again. The bit with poking at his rallys was priceless to see.

I’m going to try one more time here…

Nobody said ‘deny’ at any point in this exchange. The OP said mandatory/compulsory, aka force them to do so.

Deny and compel are NOT the same thing, they are in fact functionally the opposite each other.

What point is there to compel someone who self-selects as lacking in knowledge/interest in the process. You waste time and resources for the voter, the process administrators, enforcement personnel, everyone any anyone involved including the willing and eager participants by creating longer lines and a wasting their tax funds just to satisfy a mandate by having Cleatus write ‘fuck you’ on a ballot.

If that is too complicated to understand I can’t help you.

One of the few places it could be posted on Lemmy without being down voted to the abyss, but only because it can’t be.

No, it’s not. Forcing someone who is not knowledgeable or interested to vote is in no way the same as testing whether someone is educated to determine if they should be allowed to.

You’re mixing two opposite issues there, the literacy tests you mention where in an effort to exclude people from voting.

In this this topic your asking if we should FORCE the uninformed and disinterested to vote.

These are anything but the same.