So i watched a little over half of it and so far I'm seeing zero mud slinging. You can't call it mud slinging if you are stating facts. Seemed like a whatever interview (no clue why you consider it "shit"?) that was mostly about branding and messaging; though I would have liked to hear some statistics backing up some of his platform topics; but I think we are long past ever seeing that again in the post-truth era of politics.

What exactly are you expecting out of a politic interview in 2026?

why not both?

I'd imagine fair number of Democratic voters are on the side of "progress for the average american". Something that's been sorely lacking for a very long time from both parties. In fact, I would imagine a fair number of voters have to vote "against" a candidate rather than "for" one.

But yea, anyone who abstained from voting is not "on my side" because it was extremely clear which "side" would do active harm to america and would in fact revert progress for the average american.

Trying to take the intellectual high ground of "holding politicians accountable" is silly, especially for the office of president where you only get 1 choice per party. If they really wanted to hold them accountable you should start voting in non-incumbents in offices that allow for multiple choices per party. Or at the very least offices where the power is spread among a group of people instead of in a single role.

As a professional myself, I can say with 100% experience (currently using a 8GB mac pro) that 8GB is NOT enough and I get memory warnings about once every week that causes me to have to shut down a bunch of programs and slow open them back up as needed. But at the same time, I also think given that the 8gb mac pros are only using standard M(x) silicon I think the better answer would be to just not sell standard silicon as "pro" machines.

And if you look at the pricing between an air and a pro (15" vs 14", both 512 mem, both M3 8/10/8 silicon) the price difference is only $100. The machines are very close in capability; so really the 14" mac pro is little more than a rebranded air. This difference was harder to tell pre Apple silicon as it was easier to have different CPU/GPU/etc between the air and pro to give more of an actual difference. Of course if they did do that then the "base" level price for a "pro" would be $1,999 and not look near as nice as the current $1,599.

Ultimately with the advent of apple silicon apple really should just have a single macbook line and let the silicon be the actual air/pro/etc dividing factor. But I'm sure people would have plenty to complain about if they did that and apple themselves put themselves in this position by starting the whole "pro" vs "pleb" marketing in the first place.

The real crime that apple should be held for is the base level of storage their devices have across all of their devices (Phones, computers, iPads).

There's a certain (understandable) mindset that if the service you are using has some form of "gate" to it that prevents the information from being easily scrapped on the web that there are certain privacy expectations. Discord for instance requires you to make an account, find a server, and then either join or be invited to the server. So there is an expectation that what you post (even within private messages) to only be for the people that have "access".

But the reality is (and has been proven many times now) that so long as a company has access to your data and can read/understand the data, they will sell that data to whoever wants to pay them for it (most often advertisers). This is true across websites, apps, and even operating systems.

Privacy is hard, and there aren't a lot of apps/sites/OSes that truly support it. Thankfully though, as people have started to take it more seriously more companies have started providing options to support the demand (my personal favorites are Signal and Proton).

Sure mile for mile they are less likely. But when they happen they are generally more serious as higher speeds are involved, and if Tesla has shown anything it's a much more complicated process for autonomous vehicles to navigate and deal with edge cases (like vehicles on the side of the road, emergency or otherwise). Much harder (and dangerous) to just slam on the brakes and put on your hazards on a highway than a side street if the car gets confused.

This is just such a bad take, and it's so disappointing to see it parroted all over the web. So many things are just completely inaccurate about these "statistics", and it's probably why it "seems" so many are against autonomous vehicles.

1. These are self-reported statistics coming from the very company(s) that have extremely vested interests in making themselves look good.
2. These statistics are for vehicles that are currently being used in an extremely small (and geo-fenced) location(s) picked for their ability to be the easiest to navigate while being able to say "hey we totally work in a big city with lots of people".

• These cars don't even go onto highways or areas where accidents are more likely.
• These cars drive so defensively they literally shut down so as to avoid causing any accidents (hey, who cares if we block traffic and cause jams because we get to juice our numbers).

3. They always use total human driven miles which are a complete oranges to apples comparison: Their miles aren't being driven

• In bad weather
• On dangerous, windy, old, unpaved, or otherwise poor road conditions
• In rural areas where there are deer/etc that wander into the road and cause accidents

4. They also don't adjust or take any median numbers as I'm not interested in them driving better than the "average" driver when that includes DUIs, crashes caused by neglect or improper maintenance, reckless drivers, elderly drivers, or the fast and furious types crashing their vehicle on some hill climb driving course.
5. And that's all just off the top of my head.

So no, I would absolutely not say they are "less prone to accidents than human drivers". And that's just the statistics, to say nothing about the legality that will come up. Especially given just how adverse companies seem to be to admit fault for anything.

We get it, you're a huge xbox fan and you're disappointed it doesn't have a release date. But let's be clear here: this is 100% on Microsoft. Larian has made it clear they aren't happy with the level of quality of the game on the S (believe specifically for split-screen) and they are holding out on a release date until solutions can be found. That is 100% their right, and you better believe if they released with a shitty performing S version there would be tons of articles, tweets, threads, etc moaning and calling them out on it (instead of the universal praise it is currently receiving). If Microsoft really wants the game on their console sooner they have options: They can help Larian get the S version running properly by providing developers/knowledge/tools/etc, or they could allow for games to have exceptions for certain game features on X vs S.

If anything, Larian have gone above and beyond what most other larger AAA companies put out: Cross-play, cross-save, DRM free, and a huge open-world full of enough options and branching paths to put basically every other RPG to shame. It's clear they want to deliver a great game that has everything possible they can put in it to please their customers. And part of that is not putting out a crappy version of the game. If you don't like it, maybe take it up with Microsoft; or wait patiently and see if they can't optimize and get things figured out once they game releases on the other platforms and they can spend more time focusing on the xbox platform.

From what I remember when I lived in Japan vegetables weren't a problem as much as fruit was. They were either seasonal, expensive, or both. Also the fattier, red meats could be difficult to find (things like pure ground beef was uncommon and was commonly found as a beef/pork hybrid).

And yes, I would imagine public transportation (or just having to walk/ride a bike) is a huge boon to overall health levels.

I'd imagine it's easier being the bad guy to a bunch of american browser companies rather then to all your local ISPs.

I think you are vastly minimizing the "plug and play" aspect of consoles and that the common person has a machine that can run games with a "minimal setup". While PC gaming has plenty of benefits: I think you're downplaying how much time, money, and energy you have to waste to PC game.

Steps to play on a console: 1) Turn on the system, 2a) Maybe if you're unlucky and a new patch comes out the same day you want to resume playing you have to patch the game, 2b) Play game (possibly even resume playing where you left off so you're literally instantly back into the game). Time-to-play: Maybe 20 seconds? (granted a little longer on last-gen, but also this gen you can be back in a game literally within 5 seconds).

Steps to play on a pc: 1) Turn on pc, 2) Turn on (or launch) steam/egs/gog/etc, 3) hope game was updated, 4) hope drivers are updated, 5a) launch game, 5b) maybe sign into another 3rd party launcher, 6) load fully into the game, 7) play game. Time-to-play: 1-5 minutes depending on if the computer is fully off or just in sleep. Possibly much, much longer.

But WAIT, maybe the game isn't running great so you have to alt+tab out and make sure you didn't leave something running in the background, or your 100+ tabs in chrome/ff/etc are hogging all the ram and needs to be closed; maybe new drivers came out that you need to download/install to get the game running right, maybe the new drivers made the game worse and you have to revert them. Maybe the controller you wanted to play the game on disconnected or otherwise malfunctioned and now you have to restart the game the get it to pick up the controller. Maybe the DRM on the game has hitched up and you're locked out of the game. Maybe you get a windows update that closes the game for you so it can helpfully install whatever new updates are available for you. etc etc.

I doubt any company would want to give their competitor 20-30% of their profits, so in my mind it isn't a matter of if, but a matter of when they start locking all their franchises off from PS. What will be most interesting to me will be how will they do it. Will they just drop franchises so they don't have to face the backlash for turning a franchise into an exclusive? Will they just make up a new "franchise" with a new name but similar gameplay? Will they just slowly one by one exclusive them off to try and reduce blowback? Do it all at once to get it out of the way?

This generation has already been mostly played out and I don't see large changes making a large difference, but once the next generation comes around in another 3-5 years I imagine they will want to be in a place where they can leverage all these franchises to get people excited to buy their new box over their competitors. And you do that with exclusives.