If by 'burned a little' you mean 'her labia literally melted and fused shut,' you're correct.

"Corporations are people, and money is speech" comes rather forcefully to mind.

Yes, that's the point.

Sure, you still had to buy the license, dev kits, and so on. But at the time, Nintendo was taking something like a third of the cost per unit, right off the top, if I remember correctly.

I'm going to go reread Game Over.

You're absolutley correct that the PSX's ease for developers to write for was a major factor, especially compared to something like the Saturn.

But Sony's real *business* genius was not doing what Nintendo did, which was to artificially limit developer access to the console.

At the time, Nintendo was still whole-hog on the 'Nintendo Seal of Quality' and treated developers like serfs. You had to get Nintendo's approval to publish, you had to go *through* Nintendo for cartridge production, and Nintendo would limit how many games a year you could publish.

They did this because they didn't want a second Great Video Game Crash of 1982.

Because cartridges take a loooong time to manufacture, developers had two choices: go big and hope your game actually sells and you're not left holding a massive inventory of unsold carts, or go little and risk having the game be a hit, and sold out for months while you wait your turn for the next cartridge run.

PSX, on the other hand, ran on CDs, and Sony couldn't care less about what you published. You could get your CDs made at any factor that could press CDs, and you could stamp out an entire run in a weekend at pennies per, compared to tens of dollars per cart in manufacturing and license fees.

Nintendo was acting like it was an inevitable force of nature, rather than a big fish in a sea of competition.

You haven't demonstrated bias.

So?

The video argues that a recent Consumer Reports reliability ranking, claiming EVs have 80% more problems than internal combustion engine (ICE) cars, is misleading and biased.

Main Argument: Consumer Reports is Misrepresenting Data

The video contends that Consumer Reports (CR) is fabricating a narrative against electric vehicles by using flawed scoring systems that equate minor inconveniences with catastrophic mechanical failures [00:24].

  * Skewed Scoring: CR weights minor software glitches (like Bluetooth connectivity issues or infotainment bugs) the same as major mechanical failures (like blown engines or transmission deaths) [07:07].

  * Subjective Surveys: The data relies heavily on subjective member satisfaction surveys rather than objective field failure data [02:31].

Key Details & Evidence Presented

  * The "Ford" Anomaly: The host points out a massive contradiction where Ford had the worst recall year in US history (110 recalls in 10 months and $6 billion in warranty costs), yet CR claimed Ford jumped to its best quality ranking in 15 years.

  * Ignored ICE Failures: The video states CR ignored that over 5 million ICE vehicles were recalled for major engine failures in 2025. These are critical failures leaving cars inoperable, unlike many EV issues [01:37].

  * Software vs. Hardware: Most EV "failures" cited are software issues often fixed via over-the-air updates. In contrast, ICE recalls often require physical repairs and leave owners without vehicles for significantly longer [02:49].

  * Toyota & Bias: The host suggests a conflict of interest, noting Toyota is the number one advertiser in the US and lobbies heavily against EVs. Coincidentally, Toyota ranked #1 on the list while reputable EVs were ranked lower [10:15].

Conclusion of the Video

The speaker argues that EVs actually have far fewer mechanical failure points (drivetrains rarely break) compared to modern ICE engines, which are failing at record rates due to complex emission compliance technologies [07:51].

The video concludes that CR's report is "intentionally deceptive" to cater to their demographic and generate fear-based clicks [11:31].

Wow, didn't even have to ctrl-f to find Fluffernutter complaining that EVs aren't ICE.

My guy, ChatGPT isn't running on a single hard drive with a file system that just deletes the reference to the files in the file allocation table and doesn't happen to overwrite the data for a while.

Next you'll tell me that people with AIDS who stop talking ART suddenly get the symptoms and effects of AIDS again.

Or that people suffering from schizophrenia who stop taking their anti-schizophrenia medicine suffer the effects of schizophrenia again.

Or that people taking anti-hypertensives get hypertensive 'all over again.'

Just wait until you find out that every person on the planet who ever had cancer also spent their entire lives being exposed to dihydrogen monoxide.

I'm looking forward to this. I actually found the Squid Game Challenge gameshow to be more entertaining than the actual Squid Game drama.

They're saying 'the issue isn't social media in and of itself; it's what's *on* the social media, what's being done *through* social media that's the problem.'

If everybody's feeds were nothing but affirmations, positive stories, and CBT tips and tricks, social media use would probably have much better mental health outcomes.

Unfortunately, it's full of hate, impossible physical standards being sold as 'I drink a thimble of lemon water after every meal' and negative content specifically designed to drive engagement.

"Study finds weak evidence linking being shot in the heart multiple times to fatal outcomes."

Yeah, being shot in the heart *once* does it for you.

Once you hit a certain social media threshold, it doesn't matter if you're over that threshold by five minutes a day or five hours a day.