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 can stare at the full moon all night if you like, because the albedo of the moon has filtered most of the light including the UV band that naturally passes through our own atmosphere. The three mile circle illuminated by a mirror would bounce a significantly higher amount of UV than the moon's albedo. If you treat the 60ft reflector as an analog to a pinhole in a pinhole camera, the circular area on the Earth surface would be a rough projection of the image of the sun.
(1) I wonder how they calculate the UV exposure for the observer on the surface within the illumination area.
(2) I wonder if you'd be able to detect places in a coherent projection where sunspots or coronal ejections are reflected through the "pinhole" effect of this arrangement.
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.
What about
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].
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.'
Quark! Quark! Beware the quantum duck!