If I’m not mistaken (and I might be) the immutability can actually be toggled off for power users.

I just watched the Rerez video essay about the Ouya debacle earlier today. I followed Ouya news for a bit when the hype was strong, and I knew it fell off hard. But man, I didn’t realize just how bad it was.

Probably?

A lot of us thought this would happen if Trump won again. I don’t think any of us thought it would get this bad this quickly, but definitely within his 2nd term.

Just to be clear, when I say I blame Democrats, I mean I blame the Democratic party, the Democrat leaders (Pelosi, Schumer, etc), and their apparatus. I can see how you thought I was blaming voters, but I assure you that’s not what I meant.

And yes, I agree. The GOP are officially fascists by virtually any definition of the term.

I’m not sure the specific blame the above commenter is referring to, but I blame Democrats for two things.

1. They failed to recognize and truly fix systemic problems because the actual solutions aren’t market-oriented.

2. They dragged their heels on prosecuting Trump when he was out of power long enough for him to escape any liability and ultimately establish… this.

Yes. Study.

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1586566/full

Flared bases, people!

It does, but that may not necessarily be a bad thing. It largely depends on what the overall dataset looks like.

It’s not unusual to tweak your dataset in response to certain biases, especially if there is a known bias at play (for example, I’ve actually met plenty of parents who keep having kids hoping for a boy/girl, and then stop once they get what they initially wanted. As creepy and weird as that is to me, it’s definitely a thing).

This does seem a bit blunt of an approach, however. I would’ve preferred a survey question as part of data collection where parents are asked if they were “trying” for one sex over another, if they wanted “one of each”, etc etc., and then using that info to weight the data.

But without reading the article myself, my assumption is they just used a readily available dataset (such as medical records) rather than recruit participants directly. But I could be wrong, didn’t read it after all.

I’m not sure what started it exactly, but yes, those two had a big public falling out. During which, Elon criticized the budget bill.

Eh. Trump is publicly weighing the idea of deporting Musk. He’ll turn on anyone, no matter the previous displays of loyalty.

This does seem aimed at CNN, in particular, imho.

Nichijou will always hold a special place in my heart. Slice of life anime with a level of joke escalation to rival Key and Peele.

Man, I still really struggle to understand​ how we can reliably age-gate anything on the Internet without sacrificing privacy for everyone.

IRL you can just show your govt issued ID, but there’s virtually zero privacy risk doing so. Bouncers don’t register ID scans, typically, and they’re just one person. The govt doesn’t know you went to that club or drank at that one bar, unless they’re actively surveilling you.

But if I needed to identify myself as an adult online, simply by virtue of how digital systems work, that probably requires checking against a govt database, and that database will keep logs, and now Trump knows I went to Pornhub, and likely also exactly what I watched or searched for.

Maybe I’m dumb, but I really don’t know any way around this sort of thing.

I remember reading a Haidt article for an ethics class in grad school. The analysis felt… underwhelming? It’s been too long to remember the article, but I think it was something about the “morality” of conservatives being not worse but different than liberals (limited to the US, iirc). I just remember reading it and going… yeah conservative morality functions differently. It’s also just demonstrably worse, though, even based on what the article was focusing on?

That class was weird though. Mostly just a bunch of folks going,“yeah well this is what I care about” and disagreeing with each other with seemingly no intention whatsoever to try and evaluate or engage with one another.

Was that from Bluesky or somewhere else?

Existing owners can upgrade to the Switch 2 version for $10, gaining better framerates, higher resolutions, and HDR support.

I didn’t realize they had this option. As far as legal routes go, that’s not terrible (assuming there’s no weird downside, like no longer being able to play the original on the switch 1). Free would be better, of course, but $10 certainly beats paying $90 just to play the improved version on switch 2.

High skill ceiling?

More like a high skill floor! Good Lord, I don’t think I’d ever be able to beat that level without cheats, lol.

My comment was more about the hypocrisy of the term “American values”. The people who most loudly espouse “American Values” rarely do more than pay lip service to ideals they think are good in a vacuum, but never actually support in practice when those values are tested even a little bit (democracy, equality, free speech, the right to protest, etc etc).

That may not be a uniquely American trait, either, but it is still annoyingly present enough it warrants complaining about.

This technically isn’t a filibuster, apparently.

But yes, they could suspend the filibuster rule, potentially. I’m not sure of the specifics. It might require 60 votes?

Should be. But isn’t.

American Values TM©®

No worries! The only reason to evaluate (or re-evaluate) a piece of software is if you have a need or desire the software might fulfill. And if you don’t have either, it literally doesn’t matter, lol.