But that's what I'm saying, that choice is axiomatic. I think most people would agree, but it's a belief, not an unquestionable truth. You're choosing something to optimize and defining that to be good.

I'm not really arguing against this tho (perhaps the choosing part, but I'll get to it). I'm saying that a goal post of "axiomaric universal good" isn't all that interesting, because, as you say, there is likely no such thing. The goal shouldn't therefore be to find the global maximum, but to have a heuristic that is "universal enough". That's what I tried to make a point of, in that the golden rule would, at face value, suggests that a masochistic should go around and inflict pain onto others.

It shouldn't be any particular person's understanding, but a collectively agreed understanding. Which is in a way how it works, as this understanding is a part of culture, and differs from one to the other. Some things considered polite in the US is rude in Scandinavia, and vice versa. But, regardless, there will be some fundamentals that are universal enough, and we can consider that the criteria for what to maximise.

I think it is easy enough to argue without making it circular. As for "good", I don't think an objective absolute and universal definition is necessary.

The argument would be to consider it an optimization problem, and the interesting part, what the fitness function is. If we want to maximise happiness and freedom, any pair of people is transient. If it matters that they be kind to you, it is the exact same reasoning for why you should be to kind to them. Kinda like the "do unto others", except less prone to a masochist going around hurting people.

There is a different side to this equation too. Locally sourcing production. There is no surplus stock that needs to be thrown unopened. No shipping of some part that solves some particular problem. Replacement parts can be made for things that would otherwise be cheaper to buy new and dump the old one, etc.

I was.

Maybe this was an intentional leak. Now the Nintendo lawyers can claim they've used stolen proprietary code?

If so, what are you complaining about?

I believe their argument was something along the lines of: 1. Over-funded police. 2. Underfunded child care.

Your argument seems to be, and correct me if I'm wrong: It's always been shit, and you [sic] can bring your own lunch.

I suppose. If you are doing things against TOS and you suspect just might happen, by all means.

The license is with regards to "GOG Service", not "GOG Contents". You need the former to get access to the latter, sure. But what isn't clear about this?

You still own the contents (though, as mentioned, individual titles may have additional blablabla). If you don't think this distinction makes sense when it comes to GoG vs Steam, then maybe you're just discussing something entirely different?

That's for the gog service itself.

Gotcha. It's very effective if you want to make up stuff, and then argue that. But, in that case, don't you have better things to do?

I find it confusing why you put that in quotes, then suggest it's not necessarily their opinion, but following it up by implying that was the implied statement.

The guy just said American political literacy is embarrassingly lacking, which is far worse than what is needed for a functional democracy. Which has nothing to do with your "interpretation"

Fair enough :)

As far as story arcs types go, Kaos S1 was far more complete than "multiple pretty massive cliffhangers" warrants IMHO.

Even though the creator envisioned 3 seasons to fully tell the story, they did an excellent job in making season 1 entertaining, and worth watching in of itself. Which cannot be said for many other shows...

How so? KAOS was brilliant. Have you seen it? Season 1 didn't finish on a cliffhanger.

What do you mean? Native Linux isn't that relevant these days. Most games run well through Proton, and some even better than on Windows. Judging by the protondb entry, you wouldn't notice on Linux that this was a windows game: https://www.protondb.com/app/2142790

Less than 20 minutes on average for me. That is, 20 minutes from leaving home, walking to the nearest voting place, voting, and walking back. Added about 5 minutes or so when part of my work commute.

I believe that a significant factor for this can be attributed to mental development and maturity of boys lagging behind that of girls of the same age, during formative years. And, please read on, if you assume my argument is "boys dumb, conservatives dumb. Q.E.D."

The second factor is an education system where this offset in mental development/maturity is further confounded. Boys don't typically do as well, because sitting idle and being a "good boy", is more challenging. This leads to a path for boys to start working earlier, while girls get higher degrees. (I assume the trends for higher education by gender, to be similar, if not, then that can falsify this hypothesis).

What a person then observes they get from society, vs what you pay in terms of taxes, is skewed between these two groups, and highly correlated with gender.

If this hypothesis has any validity to to it, then one could argue that a way to mitigate this is by correcting the negative causes. Where the fundamental root cause might be improved by revisiting how education is failing boys in particular.

The challenge with this is that if the conservative parties' policies are driven by what can make more people vote conservative, then this will be a negative feedback loop. The worse you make it for a certain group of people that vote for you, the more that group is willing to vote for you.

So, generated value vs what is compensated. It looks like to me like the difference is the basis for the absurd wealth inequality. So, if we increased wages, let's say roughly 2x for the mean, 5x for the bottom 10p, and 1.5x for 90p, and 0.5x up to 95p. Has anyone done a calculation similar to this, to determine just how few people, that is, how high the percentile, and how low that factor, for that to actually add up? Maybe it even allows for everyone to live decent lives, just mildly inconveniencing a few thousand?

One can start wondering if a few hundred heads rolling isn't a valid moral least-evil proposition. Life considered equal. More people die every single day due to arguably greed. In most of the 99.9p+ cases, I assume is due to inherited wealth, and existing market capture. So it's not like some exceptional value is lost to humanity either.

It's not the same thing? Emulation of older consoles improve and mod the experience. Upscaling, custom textured, etc

There are dozens of us. Dozens! I don't know whe the fascination for perfectly level lawns, pruned daily by automatic lawnmowers.