SteveGoob

I'm not gonna do the maths

Let me help you out there, since I need something to help me procrastinate anyways lol

being 1.43:1 ratio would leave about half the screen blanked out on the sides.

I was curious to find out what this came out to as well. Turns out though, on a 16:9 screen, scaling a full 1.43:1 frame to fit only results in side bars that each take up less than 10% of the image, (less than what I was suspecting to be honest).

While a ~20% size reduction isn't ideal, so is watching a movie that was composed for a different aspect ratio. IMHO, people should have the choice to watch in whatever way best appeals to their needs. We used to do this on DVDs where you could opt for either the widescreen or fullscreen version of the movie, so there's definitely precedent for it.

Unfortunately, the option for the 1.43 version of many of these movies can't be found outside of their IMAX run in theaters. (At least not officially...)

Maybe cause its a separate issue? Look, yes it is costly to extract the resources for a battery, but once we have it, we have it for good. Batteries are incredibly recyclable at this point (90%+ recoverable, conservatively), and a new battery can be almost entirely created using previous batteries.

This is in comparison to fossil fuels, which you get to burn exactly once, after which point you have to go extract more. The environmental costs of extracting oil (not even burning it) are well documented.

Where a ICE car requires ongoing environmental devastation, an electric one does not inherently require it. As more of the materials for batteries enters circulation, there's less need to go extract more, and as grids transition from fossil fuels to renewables the climate impact of charging can be lessened as well.

Of course this isn't to say that an electric car is the climate endgame. More walkable places, better public transit, better regulation of corporate polluters, etc. are the real meat and potatoes. But saying that EVs are just as bad as ICE cars is just not true.

I don't refute that. I agree that far too many humans are far too comfortable with unsafe following distances.That's not the claim you made though:

Traffic is solely due to human error

And as I said, it's just simply not true. Congestion happens because car traffic does not scale or recover from disturbances efficiently. Human behavior exacerbates this, sure, but cars are just fundamentally bad at moving people when a road is at capacity. Chalking traffic it up to "human error" alone misses the forest for the trees.

This is simply not true on its face.

Unlike the thought expirement you're running in your head, the real world does not have the luxury of avoiding the possibilities of sudden mechanical failure, a soccer ball being kicked into the road, or unsecured debris falling out of the bed of a truck. These are privately owned and maintained vehicles after all, under many more engineering constraints and usage pressures than just achieving maximum reliablilty in all conditions.

These things require some degree of margin for error. In general, any car should be able to fully stop before entering the space currently occupied by the car in front of it in order to account for unexpected disturbances. However, as car speeds increase, so do the tolerances required to maintain that safe margin, exponentially in fact.

Removing the human from the driver seat doesn't mean we get to start running bumper to bumper at 70mph; at best it means that cars can get away with slightly smaller follow distances than humans need to account for their comparably slow reaction times.

If you instead believe that we should exert enough control over self driving cars such that we could actually realistically prevent catastrophe while running high speed bumper to bumper traffic, then I have great news for you! We already have that, and it's called a train.

This is the correct answer. Moonring is also an acceptable answer, and also free.

Spandana is in for a rough one once she realizes that EC2 instances, even if powered on for only a few seconds, will be charged for an hour's worth of each of her alarm instances since AWS always charges for the first full hour regardless of usage.

Smart choice. Lethal injection has a terrible history in reliably killing someone without issues. A firing squad is significantly more humane, and people on death row will generally opt for it if given the choice.

However, it's far less common today because society doesn't like firing squads; everything about them feels too barbaric.

Hmmm I wonder why that is... Surely it couldn't be because capital punishment itself has no place in civilized society, right?

Not entirely sure on the genre name, but try checking out Stick Fight: The Game. It's a similarly great time with fast rounds and lots of variety.

Have you recently done any hardware modifications? I had very similar issues which persisted until I realized I had not fully seated the 24pin connector after changing out my CPU cooler. After seating it properly, random boots and reboots went away.

This. So much this. Monopolies are often evidence of an unhealthy/stagnating market, but they're more symptom than cause. Trusts/cartels, price-fixing, and anticompetitive behavior are the actual abuses of market power, and are much more problematic.

I'm not going to claim that Valve is perfect (they're not, e.g. see issues regarding DRM) and I'd love to have more choices about where I buy my games, but I can't think of any instance of them abusing their position in the market to prevent new entrants or claim an unfair advantage. From what I've seen, they appear to be a very fair and honorable competitor in the space. However, if anyone is aware any examples to the contrary, I'd love to hear about it and update my opinions.

My thought as well. Not an Israel apologist, but it's difficult to trust this video on its face because of the seasonal differences.

Take a look at metaname. They offer a very minimal (read: unencumbered) service, and are based in New Zealand. Not the EU, but at least it's not the US.