Really isn't. I haven't seen cursive anywhere but on documents in a museum at any point in my life. That includes signatures, which are more likely to be a squiggle than anything resembling actual cursive. There is zero point to mandatory instruction on it anymore (if there ever was- the idea that it was a faster way of writing is backed by 0 proof. And even if it was, the ease of reading script more than cancels out those speed gains).

I don't think that's it. Gaming PC's generally cost more than a console, and the "general purpose PC that can also dabble in some gaming" is becoming less common. It seems that people are buying less PC's but those who are still buying them are often buying them for a purpose.

I think it's that "gaming" (and by that I need AAA high dollar value gaming as opposed to casual cell phone/mobile device gaming) is becoming a little more niche of a hobby. Niche hobbies often have high costs associated with them because the small group of people who are willing to participate are willing to unload large sums of money into it.

PC gaming has always been where the best performance and visuals have been available - and it could just be that the remaining customer base are the ones who want that whilst more casual people are fine using their mobile devices for playing a different type of game.

I will say personally I've always bought consoles strictly for exclusives, while always also maintaining a gaming PC as well. As exclusives become less of a thing and everything seems to be available on PC anyways, I have little incentive to actually buy a console anymore.

General purpose PC's are becoming more rare, but it seems like gaming PC's are starting to account for a larger chunk of the PC population. In general it seems like people who just want to do mundane tasks are largely moving away from full PC to tablets and smartphones, but people who actually want to game are still very much getting PC's to do it on.

I'm an old fart who still games, but every one of my 3 teenage nieces have asked me to build them a gaming PC because it's a "cool kid" thing to have one.

I'm not sure DRM is hugely necessary. So many games do online play now that just getting a pirated copy of something generally isn't as functional. And honestly the LAST thing I'd do in modern times is run executable code from some random torrent site. Media files for audio and/or video sure, but anything executable is a no-go for me.

I don't know - maybe its because I'm not the broke teenager I once was, but I haven't pirated a game in probably 20 years. If you wait most of them will be $5 or less eventually on steam anyways.

Equating AI with Pac-Man isn't really the intellectual flex you probably think it is.

Anthropic's entire pitch has always been safety. Innovation like this tends to favor a very few companies, and it leaves behind a whole pile of losers that also had to spend ridiculous amounts of capital in the hopes of catching the next wave. If you bet on the winning company you make a pile of money, if you pick one of the losers then the capital you invested evaporates. Anthropic has positioned itself as OpenAI, except with safeguards, and that could very well be the formula that wins the jackpot. Historically, litigation and government sponsorship have been instrumental in picking winners.

However, as things currently stand, Anthropic is unlikely to win on technical merits over its competition. So Dario's entire job as a CEO is basically to get the government involved. If he can create enough doubt about the people that are currently making decisions in AI circles that the government gets involved, either directly through government investment, or indirectly through legislation, then his firm has a chance at grabbing the brass ring. That's not to say that he is wrong, he might even be sincere. It is just that it isn't surprising that his pitch is that AI has the potential to be wildly dangerous and we need to think about safety. That's essentially the only path that makes his firm a viable long term player.

I don't mean "modern print" as opposed to "old print" - I mean print with modern writing instruments as opposed to the instruments of the time when cursive was invented. They didn't exactly have ball point pens back in the days of yore.

Cursive is not generally less movement in the 2d plane of the paper - it is just less movement up and down in the 3d space so that you are removing the pen from the paper less. The thing is, we can move in 2 directions at once. The tip of a pen can come off the paper as its moving to the next location with very little impact in overall speed.

The goal of cursive is to keep the tip on the page more which worked better for quills as coming off the page and back onto it would often cause an ink blot and could break the tip of a quill. Those issues are gone with ink pens. Plus have you ever looked at cursive from when they really focused on it? Like census reports from the 1800's? A lot of that stuff is basically illegible. Even the archives that have translated it will just have ????? in some spots because no one could make out what was written. While print isn't immune to

Trust me - I know how to write it. I'm old. I was forced to learn it in elementary school and had to do all assignments in cursive up through high school. Its still a dumb idea.

Hand-writing is fine. Cursive itself is pointless. Print is just as fast in modern times and is FAR more legible.

If you look at cursive writing from like an 1800's census or something, half of it is virtually impossible to read. Cursive was invented for use with QUILLS. Even if you're writing by hand now you're using a pencil or an ink pen, not a quill.

Mohammad Ali has been gone for quite some time; how much could he possibly demand?

just because people are allegedly told to use Oxford commas does not mean they are correct. I do not use them.

what if your list is two elements?

you can pretend there isn't a conflict but there is one.

Now I pay the same outrageous prices for just cable internet alone, and I pay for streaming services!