DLC and versions. It's still a treadmill for the consumer, but it's an honest one.

A la carte; new features can be sold. Every year you bundle them into the new base version... doesn't affect people with the old version who don't pay.

Every decade you set a new baseline and stop releasing DLC for your old version. Or every five years or whatever.

The point is, the subscription model isn't there for you, it's there for them. The new features aren't there for you, they are there to justify the subscription model. And to bloat the system so you have to buy new hardware which breaks your previous license because it was tied to the OS. It's 99% scam.

I still have WinNT running in a VM. It's idle, not connected to a network, essentially frozen, but it still works if I want to poke around. It would be dumb to open it to the Internet to any degree, but I could do it. I bought the OS, it's *mine*.

Security updates due to newly discovered exploits? Yes.

ANYTHING ELSE NO! Do not change my OS from the one I purchased unless and until I explicitly request it.

Still trying to extort money from IBM after all this time. Nothing like a business model made up entirely of rent seeking.

A growth mindset would say, hire more. If LLM's are a force multiplier then you increase productivity dramatically by burning the candle at both ends. The bottleneck then becomes sales.

Thats the thing though, the CEO's aren't the ruling class, the board of directors is.

Unfortunately an 11 year old EV just isn't worth the battery replacement. The car does what it needs to do, and I'd rather invest in a newer vehicle. It won't be more than a year or two before rust starts eating the thing out from under me anyway.

AI is trained on human data, so good AI output cannot be separated from human output unless the output is long enough that incoherence seeps in.

As AI models improve, the length of output required to reasonably determine 'AI-ness' is going to increase.

This is not a complaint, but I have an 11 year old Leaf and while it reports a 120 km at full charge, it drops to ~80 km by the time you reach the end of the driveway. You don't dare use the heat or AC unless you really need to. Realistically it has about 50-60km of safely usable range.

It's not enough for distance travel because it's possible to find places along the routes I travel where the gaps between L2 chargers are bigger than that, and I'm not stopping for 10 minutes every 50 km when I still have an ICE vehicle that will go 650 km on a tank.

However, it is awesome as a city vehicle. I don't even have a 220V outlet for it - it charges overnight on 110V, and I can get around town without ever needing a gas station.

My experience with the Leaf is why my next car will probably be an off-lease Chevy Bolt, and when I make that move I'll have enough range to do 99% of my driving without stopping.

One less 'cousin' species to daydream about...

We share the FOXP2 gene with Neanderthals and Denisovans, and it is strongly suspected this gene is what gave us our next-level language abilities. It appears to have evolved somewhere between 500k and 700k years ago.

If we split with the hobbits over a million years ago, it's very good odds they didn't have it and couldn't have been significantly more like us than any modern non-human ape species.

If your profit margins vary significantly between countries and the deviation from the expected appears to line up nicely with financial transfers from a high tax country to a low tax country:

A) The high tax country should make that illegal

B) The high tax country's collections enforcement should give your corporation a financial colonoscopy followed by a fine equal to twice what you 'saved'.

In the US, in the majority of regions, it appears to serve the desires of the wealthiest members of society regardless of the expense to the remainder.

In no sane society would datacenters be prioritized over supplying water and power to citizens, nor would standards and enforcement be so lax as to leave water and power supplies unsafe and unreliable so private operators can have better profit margins.

The reason you pay taxes is to support a community that provides common benefit. When there is no benefit - and even if you're incredibly wealthy infrastructure benefits you by providing a nicer country to live in - you have to start to wonder why you're paying taxes.

I have never paid any sort of subscriptions for a games or paid for one that can't run offline on my own computer or phone. If I can't get a physical copy of a game, it has to be free or ad-supported to play. That doesn't mean I don't occasionally pay for a booster or something, or spend a few bucks for ad-free, but I sure as heck don't spend hundreds of dollars or feel any sort of loss if the game would go away.

Stop asking the nanny government to fix this. Step up and make a sacrifice yourself like a responsible adult instead of a whining baby. Your wallet is your best tool, as long as enough are willing to pay for something, companies will continue to sell it. And if the government creates rules, they will find a way around it.

On the other side, it costs money to keep those remote servers running. I don't begrudge companies for charging for it. Nor do I begrudge them to right to turn them off when they are no longer profitable. It's my choice to determine how much money I'm willing to spend for entertainment. People only rent online games and their associated purchases, they don't own them. The sooner players understand that and decide to spend accordingly the sooner the pricing structure will change. But as long as people are willing to spend hundreds of dollars to buy electrons that aren't theirs, companies will continue to offer it.

In the end, it's the consumer's choice and obligation to decide what they spend money on. Grow up and accept the consequences of your actions instead of playing the victim.

Even after all this time, I am somehow surprised that the compromised Supreme Court had to incur Trump's wrath to protect him from trying to fix the election in ways that would disproportionately disenfranchise his own base.

Two generations from now, it will be a struggle to convince students any of this actually happened. It's just too stupid to be credible even as I'm living through it.

A post-pandemic boost is plausible, but you cannot trust any numbers from the current US government, especially when it's facing slaughter in the upcoming midterms.

When I was young, I thought older people who shrugged these kinds of things off with "when it's my time, it's my time" were irrational. I'm past the half-way mark now and I get it.

I am not going to spend my life on min/maxing my health, because no matter what I do, I'm going to die. If I exercise, first I'm spending my time on something I dislike, second I will likely end up with joint issues and instead of cancer I'll just be in chronic pain.

There are limits, and I'm sure I'm making these choices at least half-blind to the odds, but I'm making the choices regardless. I eat decently but not a health-optimized diet, I make sure I move around enough that I don't lock up, and I make sure I don't get too fat to be active when I choose to be active, but I enjoy life more with my brain than my body.

If that means I lose one of the 80-90 years I'm likely to allocated given my current health, I'm absolutely at peace with that outcome. Unless science can tell me that changing my habits will give me decades more life, it's just not worth it to me to change my lifestyle over a significant but ultimately small shortening of my potential lifespan.