Console master race stays winning, you filthy PC gaming peasants.

Buy the S2 now, while they're still working through their existing backlog of stock.

I bought a PS5Pro when the word 'tariffs' was first dropped, and I'm glad I did.

I think she could reasonably assume that she wouldn't be served liquid hot enough to literally melt her.

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.

Prohibition was repealed.

I don't disagree. Personally I think the Federal government got too powerful after the civil war & we really don't even have the same type of government that the founders envisioned.

I'd be somewhat in favor of an Article 5 convention so long as any changes had to be subject to a vote like the President is elected. The Electoral Collage system is absolutely brilliant & gives the individual vote maximum power because a handful of voters can change the outcome of an entire election. If people really want something they need to get out and vote. If you stay home you can't complain if the other side doesn't.

Anyway, good luck to us all.

Well you're not wrong. Most people forget the 9th & 10th amendments and what they actually say.

9. The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
        - Basically saying, "just because we listed a few specific Rights here, that doesn't mean those are the only ones The People have."

10. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
        - The Federal Government is not permitted to just assume new powers because we didn't specifically restrict it here. If it's not specifically listed in this document the government cannot do it.

How far afield of these rules has the Federal strayed? How much longer will The People tolerate it?

Wait, what?

The Constitution is a restriction on the powers of the Federal Government, not on Anthropic. The Federal Government does have the ability to "regulate commerce" under what is called the Commerce Clause in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3.

I'm not sure what particular law(s) c/would apply here - if any - however I'm certain various courts might have to render a judgement.

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].