GreyEyedGhost

And far too many are okay with it. I met a former Albertan who unironically said we need more CO2 in the atmosphere.

Weak and unimaginative.

Under ideal conditions, I don't see how this would lose any more genetic information than sexual reproduction with parents of the opposite sex. The problems you're referring to seem to be more of an issue if two gametes were supplied by a single parent.

There are a number of less optimal combinations, as well, such as XXY, XYY, and XXYY.

I believe we can make a self-driving car with only optical sensors that performs as well as a human someday. I don't think today is that day, or that we shouldn't aim for self-driving to be far better than human drivers.

The whole premise of ABS brakes, which all cars made in North America since 2012 will have, is specifically to allow you to maintain control when you fully apply the brakes. Unless you are a professional driver or have a car without ABS, you should just fully apply the brakes in an emergency stop. Please stop telling people that fully applying the brakes will reduce manueverability when it won't for the majority of drivers in the developed world.

And if someone's vehicle doesn't have ABS, they should know how to properly brake without locking their tires, and when it won't be appropriate to use them.

I prefer action , or even just talking, over pointless gestures.

There are no palatable choices in this election. You can vote for the guy who has said Israel should hurry up and finish the job or the woman who has asked for a cease fire. There are other choices, but they tend to support the first guy. It would be awesome to have a choice that results in the genocide absolutely stopping, and I feel it's entirely appropriate to be angry that isn't an option, but it isn't the choice we have. Perhaps you believe standing aside and doing nothing when the moral choice isn't available is the correct thing to do. I vehemently do not, but that is also an option American voters have, whether through protest voting or abstaining from voting altogether. Unfortunately, my world hasn't been that black and white for a long time.

Ah, okay, I didn't get the reference. Pretty sure it was Simpsons MacGyver.

It's an interesting form factor, and it isn't like they saved that gotcha for 3/4 of the way through the article.

As a gamer, there isn't too much I can do about it, except buy games from other stores where the developers offer their games. As a developer, if I'm worried about Valve becoming abusive, it makes sense for me to use more than one marketplace, or a different marketplace than Valve altogether. Since Valve doesn't seem to have a lot of exclusivity deals, this either means it costs more for developers to maintain multiple distribution channels, or they don't think it benefits them to have multiple distribution channels. That said, the continued existence of those other distribution channels leaves the option to leave if they don't like Valve's behavior.

As a gamer, all I can do is support other stores, and I do.

Now, I get the appeal to authority, and the arguments against it. Obviously they wanted the cachet of the Nobel name for their economics prize, but economists often worry about the wrong thing. Yes, stagnant capital is bad for the economy, and a stagnant economy is bad for society, but having a vibrant economy doesn't necessarily mean society is benefiting. Most economists don't worry too much about that, and many businesses don't, either. And that's where the problems come in.

While companies are going about making profits, they rarely worry about the world or society they operate in. This is why they will happily pollute the planet, underpay their employees, or produce goods and services that maximize profits rather than better suit their customers', and society's, needs. Hence, fossil fuel companies desperately hanging onto their current profit model while storms rage and cities flood, or light bulbs being made to burn out (or, in the case of LEDs, just a certain component so they can be easily 'recycled'). And this is where society needs to have strong government to step in and curb the ravenous hunger of capitalism and direct that energy in ways that help society.

So, for good or ill, more housing needs to be built, even if that means housing prices are stagnant or even drop. Food has to be affordable, or people with less income need to be supported so they aren't starving. People need to be educated well, so they don't make imprudent choices and have better opportunities in life. Healthcare needs to be accessible, so society is happier, healthier, and can also further drive that economy.

Keep capitalism for what it is good for (or find a way to replace it with something better, preferably without burning civilization down), which is finding innovative ways to get things done, and looking for new and interesting things to make society better. And use government to set limits and direction, such as incentivizing needed housing that isn't profitable.