my_hat_stinks

It depends on who built the trap. John Kramer is the original jigsaw and came up with the whole “the choice is yours” thing so his traps are always technically escapable. Amanda is the first apprentice and breaks John’s rules by making traps completely impossible, she ends up in three separate games (if you count Saw 2) because John wanted her to stop. Then there’s the cop who’s lead killer for like three movies but I still never remember his name, he just straight-up murders people so obviously his traps aren’t always winnable either. I’m not sure why he even bothers with traps. The guy from Spiral has no real connection to Jigsaw and just uses traps as a cover, but that’s also a detective movie more than a Saw movie; the plot would barely change if there were no traps at all.

Just right click a link, it’s the option directly under copy link.

I’m not sure how sound that reasoning is, it’s difficult to use intuition to determine whether one infinite set is bigger than another. Infinity is weird.

Say for instance you have two infinite sets: a set of all positive integers (1, 2, 3…) and a set of all positive multiples of 5 (5, 10, 15…). Intuitively you might assume the first set is bigger, after all it has five times as many values, right? But that’s not actually the case, both sets are actually exactly the same size. If you take the first set and multiply every value by 5 you have the second set, no need to add or remove any values. Likewise, dividing every value in the second set gives you the first set again. There is no value in one set that can’t be directly mapped to a unique value in the other, therefore both sets must be the same size. Pick any random number and it’s 5 times as likely to be in the first set than the second, but there are not 5 times as many values in the first set.

With infinitely many universes one particular state being a few times more or less likely doesn’t necessarily matter, there can still be as many universes with you as without.

Sort of, but only if you’re launching through Steam. You can launch DRM-free Steam games through the executable file without launching Steam if you already have the files downloaded.

Games on Steam don’t require Steamworks or any other DRM, if your game won’t launch without Steam running that’s a choice by the game developer and not a restriction imposed for Steam.

What a ridiculous argument. They’re not saying big tech companies are necessarily as abusive as those other organisations, they’re saying people might want to avoid them in the same way.

By contrast your comment, intentionally or otherwise, suggests the only valid reason to avoid interacting with an organisation is if you were literally raped by them. Now that is fucked up.

You’re already paying for a car because your infrastructure demands one. I’m not in the US and get by just fine without one. Saves me a shitload of money too.

Cycling is unsafe because your infrastructure was built exclusively for cars. Your infrastructure is built exclusively for cars because most people have to use cars because your infrastructure was built exclusively for cars. It’s circular reasoning.

Both of those issues are caused by infrastructure and would be solved by building slightly less stupid infrastructure.

In place of cookies, Google has introduced a new set of tools that makes the Chrome browser itself keep tabs on what you’re doing online.

So instead of cookies which can be blocked or deleted relatively simply there’s spyware baked directly into the browser. How is this an improvement for the user?

If you would have reacted the same either way then you’re not criticising a person simply because they’re Jewish, meaning your initial premise was wrong. Treating someone worse because they’re Jewish is antisemitic, treating a Jewish person the same way you’d have treated anyone else in the same scenario is not.

If you’re truly only saying that because you “don’t like Jews” then you would be okay if a non-Jewish person committed the murder. In which case yes, it is antisemitic to be against a killing only when that killing is carried out by a Jewish person.

Being okay with murder would also be a bit of a red flag on its own but that’s a different conversation entirely.

I think there’s a simpler reason; if you embed ads as part of the video linking to a specific timestamp becomes a nightmare. One person might have no ad, another might have a 30 second ad, and a third might have 5 minutes of ad. Attempting to link to a time after the ad would give three different timestamps, and loading that timestamp could give you the clip you want or could drop you right in the middle of an ad.

To solve that issue you’d need some way for the client to determine the “true” timestamp, but then you’re also giving ad blockers a way to determine where the ad is so you’re back to square one.

The US alone has a rich history of repression (Wikipedia even has a sub-subcategory specifically for ethnic cleansing) and it’s common knowledge those DNA databases have been used by US police to track people down so it’s really not difficult to link those two concepts. These are concrete examples of things the US government does or has done, not some hypothetical scenario.

And that’s all assuming the data is only accessible to governments that have to pretend to care about their citizens, not the for-profit companies and malicious actors that currently do have access to that data.

You’re absolutely right, I can’t think of a single point in history where there was mass persecution of any particular group by a government which might have been far more efficient of they had a handy database of every citizens DNA. Just never happens, not once in all of history. There’s definitely no shining example less than a century ago.

That’s nonsense. If I were to say you’re spreading Nazi propaganda but I refuse to show anyone for fear of spreading hate, should people believe me?

If you actually were a Nazi would it be better for me to expose you with proof or would it be better to make unsubstantiated claims with plenty of room for doubt?

Paying for goods isn’t capitalism in the same way breathing isn’t speech. Currency makes capitalism easier but using currency does not make you capitalist.

Not necessarily, as it gets faster the latency between your local and remote machines becomes a bigger fraction of the time taken to process anything. If your local machine processes in 50ms and the remote machine in 5s, a latency of just 45ms would make your machine faster.

Running locally also cuts out a lot of potential security issues inherent to sending data over a network, and not sending your data to a third party is a bonus too.

That’s an odd complaint. If they didn’t ask for donations, donations would be a lower % of their income. How many donations do you need before you can ask for donations?

The UK is only UTC+0 for half the year, currently at UTC+1.

It sounds like people are grumpy that they’re being shown a feature that they can’t use or don’t want to use,

That’s the problem right there. They’re trying to sell you a new feature. That’s an ad. Ads have no place in an operating system.

The problem isn’t the robots, robots increase productivity and make life easier for humans. The problem is the corporations, which hoard the benefits of the robots to make life harder for humans.

You’re angry at the wrong thing. Few people aspire to be delivery drivers.

Having everything you want in one place isn’t a monopoly unless everything you want is only in one place.

Streaming is on-demand TV sans ads, I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make there.