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.

I've seen some people praising this mass layoff as being better and less ghoulish than most others, but that's pure marketing. The severance package being more generous than it had to be is purely a marketing expense, like any other marketing expense. We should be both 1. glad for those affected that they're not being screwed harder than they had to be while also being 2. clear-eyed that Dorsey is doing that to do a bit of reputation laundering. A tactic to try to get people to think of him as being less ghoulish than we should properly regard him as. Just as his scapegoating AI (it's not AI) and his remarkably human and non-robotic announcement are designed purely to make him look good and discourage us from thinking he is a ghoul. But don't be fooled. He's a ghoul.

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].

It's a bit of a moot point. Systems that aren't receiving general OS updates wouldn't receive updated bootloaders anyhow. So they wouldn't need the updated certificates that allow for bootloaders signed after June 2026.

It gets a bit tautological, but only systems that are getting updates need updates.

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

It lacks an appropriate number of ports and doesn't support DisplayPort.

USB DisplayPort alt mode says hello. Every rear USB-C port on the Mac Mini is also a DisplayPort. Just as it is on all of Apple's laptops.

Thunderbolt is a garbage, proprietary Apple standard.

Thunderbolt is an Intel standard. And in the case of Thunderbolt 4, it's just an additional set of feature requirements over base USB4, where those features are optional. In other words, TB4 is a superset of USB4.

The existence of countless freemium businesses disproves the validity of that take on its face.

I would say more, but I already wrote a more detailed response to a similar point here.

That's a pretty contrived hypothetical that AFAIK has never been litigated before.

Regardless, I don't see a problem with people doing that being legal. I'm not sure many other people would have a problem with it either.

That take is oft-repeated, but I just don't buy it. Never have.

File sharing being legal does not make it impossible for authors in any medium to make money. Anyone who believes that simply lacks imagination.

More than that, by now after decades of seeing new business models evolve with the internet, it's fair to say that to subscribe to that take lacks more than imagination â" it lacks observation. Many modern content creators incorporate the reality that file sharing is widespread and inevitable into their business models. The most obvious examples are the countless successful freemium businesses.

If we did legalize file sharing, the result would be 1. little would change because most of the people who would freeload already were freeloading and 2. we'd see even more creative business models emerge to ensure creators continue getting paid now that nobody would be in denial anymore about the existence of a large, inevitable group of freeloaders in all aspects of content consumption.

Free at the point of consumption and creators getting paid are not mutually exclusive. Putting these two things in tension and creating artificial scarcity because for one side to win, the other side must lose is fallacious, zero-sum thinking. We can do better than that as a society, and I hope some day we will.