Still salty about that "Sanity System" bullshit patent by ...surprise surprise...nintendo.

Condensing english prick comedian?

Probably Ricky Gervais

The difference is in the potential for creep.

The proposed implementation would actually be less invasive than a national ID card (assuming the implementation information provided is complete and accurate), but also usable in less scenarios.

AFAICT there is no provision for actually verifying the person using the app is the person who's identity is verified in the app.

What's to stop one person having a verified identity and just sharing it with the people around them once it's been issued ?

As an example, with an ID card in a bar you need to match the photo, this digital system would be like turning up to a bar with an ID that had no picture or details on , but just said "over 18", you could then hand this to a friend and they could also use it.

I personally think that if a system is mandatory then an easily circumventable verification system is the best choice , but such an easily circumventable system is exactly the kind of thing governments have used as an excuse to push for further encroachment.

Take the UK for example, the online safety act they have is easily circumvented with a VPN (which many people noted before it was implemented) the government basically stuck their head in the sand and claimed vpn's weren't widespread enough to be a problem.

Skip to now and they've got representatives looking to force vpn compliance with the online safety act without having the slightest clue about why that wouldn't and can't work the way they want.

A more suspicious person might suspect the attack on vpn usage was an expected part of the overall plan.

Even a less suspicious person could still see the direct line from one to the other.

I'm not saying they will, but if i were a betting person, I’d certainly put some money on it.

Gone home was great, another good one was Everybody's Gone to the Rapture.

The Long Dark feels similar in style, though it has a lot more game elements to it.

Now if only they'd finish the actual fucking game instead of tweaking the multiplayer no-one asked for, releasing a full six part DLC or developing and getting a significant way through finishing a full sequel.

Not salty about that one at all, nope.

Nappucino

You mean the NASA who landed people on the moon?

So let's assume you aren't a moon landing denier and use that as a baseline, NASA is clearly capable of things given the right circumstances and budget.

SpaceX benefited from his reputation and money, because they sure as shit didn't benefit from his technical acumen.

Business wise he is successful because he's rich and influential and that works to mitigate how shitty he is at actually running an organisation, that doesn't mean he has skills as a business person that means he has money and influence, in his case originally from the mine, then from buying and bullying his was in to businesses that were technologically sound and boosting them with his money.

You could make an argument he's a relatively good investor, but he's an actively bad CEO.

If all he said was literally "i approve of this pick for this position" you'd be correct.

What actually happened was he approved of the pick and also claimed the republicans are now actually the party that stands for the "little guy".

Then followed up with a non apology that claimed what he said was not intended to be a "political statement".

by all means, argue that you think there's a fuss over nothing, but if you leave important context out seemingly because it doesn't suit your narrative it weakens your argument substantially.

IIRC licensing monopolies and capitalist bullshit.

old link but still : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26143407

TL;DR;

Posting a link to a bunch of other links you don't seem to have actually read isn't a good basis for an argument

Scientific evidence, sure, but if you'd actually read them you'd see they aren't as inline with your argument as you seem to think.

Do you mean the one behind a paywall

Perhaps the one consisting almost entirely of owner reported (and thus inherently bias) results

Maybe the meta-study that specifically calls out how little quality and volume there is in this areas of study, comments on how self-reported studies are bias and in conclusion basically says:

“It doesn’t seem to immediately kill your pets in the limited studies that have been done, we have even seen some benefits, but we don’t have enough quality data to be that confident about anything”

How about this one which is again largely based on self-reported results.

You should actually read the "Study Limitations" section for this one.

Or the last one which is about vegetarian diets, again goes out of it's way to specifically call out the lack of current research and that the majority of current research supporting these diets is "rarely conducted in accordance with the highest standards of evidence-based medicine"

I'm aware i'm cherry picking quotes and points here, but only to illustrate that these papers aren't the silver bullet you seem to think.

Not to say there is no validity to the argument that these diets can be beneficial but it's a far cry from vegan diets are scientifically proven safe for cats and dogs.

The subjectiveness of it being a superior product aside.

Brave is chromium under the hood and therefore contributes to the rendering engine homogeneity that leaves Google in control of web standards.

Iirc they are keeping some support for manifest v2 , for now. It'll be interesting to see how that plays out for them both financially and from a technical upkeep point of view.

I'd guess it doesn't last long, but haven't looked at it hard enough to have an informed opinion on it.

That's also a logical fallacy.

You are conflating lack of effective choice with active support.

In an effectively two party race, where both arguably are supporting a position (through action if not through ideology) there is no option where you aren't effectively contributing to said position.

Vote either way or not at all , you are contributing to the overall success of one party or the other.

"Our genocide guy is better" is really the only option when there is no other practical choice.

Even voting independent just supports whoever happens to be winning from the two main parties.

What are you proposing is the practical option for people who don't want to be "in support of parties involved in committing genocide"?

To be clear i have no good answer to this either, just wondering if you do.