1. Yes, it's supposed to be a caricature. That was, literally, the joke.

2. Your declaration of victory based on entirely missing the point is entertainingly trumpian.

3. You make (incorrect) assumptions as to my neurodiversity status.

4....everyone knows, when you make an assumption, you make an ass out of "u" and "umption". - Samuel L. Jackson.

Sarcasm lost on you then?

OK, We'll do this: Razer don't care about Linux because their target demographic also don't care about Linux. Only hardcore Linux geeks obsessed with getting everything to run on Linux because it's "better/purer/freer" etc care, but they care to a passionate, frankly evangelical degree. Linux to them is scripture. They are so all-consumingly obsessed with it's superiority that to not support it must either be an error to be corrected, or ideological impurity to be attacked.

Either way, in the venn diagram of hardcore gamers and Linux evangelists, the number of people in the intersection is statistically irrelevant to Razer.

All who shun the Glory of Linux are heretics and will be burned away when the time of judgement comes!

In other news, gaming gear company reliant for profits on people not circumventing it's proprietary registration tools, makes machines that work with the sorts of OS that the vast vast majority of Gamers actually use, and doesn't see advantage in making it easy to circumvent it's proprietary tools.

Weren't they explicitly told to do more to address Fake news and propaganda from foreign state actors? How is Facebook in trouble for complying with what the left, the right, and the Trumpians all claim they wanted and reducing fake news?

I mean, there are real reasons to be angry at Facebook available.

That may well be a successful evolutionary path. But, let's face it, 'Hive' societies...that's socialism. The people in their mother's basements will never go for it.

But maybe I'm wrong.

If I am, it's the Eloi I feel sorry for.

indeed they do.

'life' Doh!

for the individual perhaps, but like extending strategies which reduce chances for procreation tend to be selected against...naturally.

No solar radiation in their normal habitat is the biggest environmental factor. A bugger to properly design a human trial for without significant ethical issues, particularly as you'd want to eliminate screens, Wi-Fi etc as well.

I didn't, but my external memory backup did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

That might do it. It's surprising how effective a simple, polite, explanation can be, even better if it gives time for thought, especially in a tense situation.

I'm sure I remember that, I think Hebrew, actually has a word that if it appears, means essentially: "now stop reading/doing and actually think about this for a minute before continuing", or something similar. Presumably designed for scripture purposes or similar, but the principle is still valid.

I think it'd be interesting to see how it affected human behavior, one way or the other.

I'll be corrected if I'm wrong but I think something similar was played around with before, certainly a similar psychology is in place when varying the "tick to agree/tick to disagree" sets. Too frustrating for use (or at least sufficiently damaging to comfort and therefore profitability to be ignored by most software providers). However I think it might have a use in the specific circumstances you suggest.

I think you are making assumptions about the quality of the emergency messaging system that may not be as accurate as we might hope. I fear it's entirely possible that there is a simple "click and confirm" and loads of people click to confirm out of habit.

In general, I find that, if the choice is between incompetence and conspiracy, incompetence is the answer. One requires a small number of people to be off their game, lazy, stupid, hungover, high, drunk or a combination of same. The other requires a much larger group of people to keep a secret of massive proportions, where failure to keep it (by bringing the conspiracy to light) would bring celebrity, quasi-hero status and the money and benefits that come with those.

I'd agree, with the caveat that they should get their pension, regardless of age, if injured on incapacitated in the line, or otherwise medically unfit to work (ether through work related issues like PTSD, or from just plain nasty life shit like cancer).

And the Finnish govt's hypothesis was that if people got the social security money, regardless, would they be more inclined to take the risk on that low income, short term, job. I'm really interested to see the results because, assuming there is a meaningful trend, it will punch a big hole in certain ideologies.

If the trend is that everyone sits at home and plays call of duty all day; then certain ideological arguments are smashed, and people are proven not to be risk averse, but to be essentially as lazy as they can get away with being.

If the trend is that people become less risk averse, and get any old odd job they can now that the risk/reward is more balanced in their favor, or start their own micro business, or even write that novel, then certain other arguments are smashed. People are proven to be inherently positive contributors provided socioeconomic factors are more neutrally balanced, or balanced in their favor.

It's not as simple as left/right of course, a lot of people on the right hold to the view that when you have more advantages you contribute more to the world, and a lot on the right disagree, and the same on the left.

What will also be interesting is, even if ideology is proven wrong, will it still hold. I mean, if this ends up being cheaper than the cost of running a bureaucracy to monitor, means test and enforce social security AND it also puts more people in to work or otherwise meaningful contribution, will the policies opponents there and around the world continue with ideological opposition? That's the more interesting question to me. On current evidence, my hypothesis is that the results, whatever they are, will change very few minds on this issue. I hope I'm wrong though.