Very ‘inspirational’, but as useless as your previous reply.

Finding a romantic partner should come naturally from making friends. Friend may introduce you to a romantic partner, or they could become one.

That’s a lovely idea, unfortunately a lot of us are growing old waiting for this bullshit.

I don’t agree with everything the guy above you said, but my circumstances are very similar to his.

I have friends, but they don’t know anyone they can introduce me to.

Sports are off the table due to both health problems and a lack of interest (do you really want group activities to be full of disinterested guys just there to chat up chicks?), never mind that they’re all heavily male-dominated around here.

Local councils put on events, but they are either for children, for mothers, or for seniors.

Everything has been turned into a product to be sold to you, almost every event costs money, and when you do pony up the events are somewhere between borderline scams and actual scams.

…

This is a recurring issue with this subject. Someone offers advice, someone points out why that advice isn’t very applicable, and the first person makes no attempt to “adapt and overcome” themselves and either a) offer better advice, or b) admit that they don’t have any better suggestions.

Calling it a thirst trap is too innocent. These dating app companies are scum-sucking vampires designed to make most people feel lonely and desperate enough to give them money in perpetuity. People just handed one of the most important and intimate aspects of their lives over to US tech bros, pressured everyone else to do the same, and two whole generations are not just having less sex than their parents, but half of them have never had a long-term relationship as they’re approaching 30.

Do yourself a favour and don’t read the possible side effects on the back of the box of paracetamol you bought from the supermarket.

You search for one thing and it starts showing recommendations.

I fail to see how this is a bad thing. Youtube’s old default homepage would show scam and content mill recommendations.

Prior to D-Day, The Allies had inflatable tanks and trucks to disguise where the real buildup was. Pretty classical tactic.

I mean I agree that this is a new user nightmare, but we’ve been conditioning people for 30 years to download and run random .EXE files as admin too.

I hope they continue to resist and eventually cause a larger change for the better across the region.

Except that’s not what’s happening if you read the article, on either count.

Women aren’t resisting childbirth as an act of rebellion or as an exercise of their rights, there’s just too many competing pressures in their lives to table in having kids. Coupled with declining rates of attachment and a distraction-based economy, this isn’t a ‘win’ for anyone.

And population decline is a crisis we don’t know how to deal with. Old people have little economic output, but use up a lot of resources. It means the kids who are still born end up carrying a huge burden paying for and caring for older generations, they end up tax serfs in an aged care-based economy, and if older generations aren’t cared for you end up with human atrocities on a massive scale.

…

Most of these comments are problematic. You don’t have to have children, but for most people it has been a pretty consistent and natural inclination. Now a whole generation are convincing themselves they don’t want children when they really just can’t, and rather than holding those responsible to account and improving all our circumstances, they’re treating it as some personal victory.

Ars’ quality dropped badly about 10 years ago, around the same time New Scientist went to shit. A lot of their articles are now uncritical regurgitations of press releases. Even the one guy they had doing really detailed investigative pieces on the videogame industry up and left probably 5 years ago.

Also they never followed through on their promise to give us an everything-but-apple RSS feed.

They cited their sources and included direct quotations from the bill.

And the direct quotations from the bill were less-than-damning without several paragraphs of editorial leading the reader down the garden path. This is on the same level as the ‘death panel’ hysteria from about 10 years ago.

At some point in the future cars will have to incl. some form of assistance technology as a standard feature, big whoop. It doesn’t say it has to be enabled by default, or always turned on, and with all the assists and autonomous driving features already being added to cars, it’s very likely most manufacturers will end up meeting the requirements of the bill without even trying.

…

If

driver behaving erratic and interfering with safe function of car

Then

pull safely to the side of the road and temporarily disable ignition

…

BuT mUh FrEeDoMs. Something something ‘right to travel’ = right to operate a car whilst intoxicated (sounds like some SovCit bullshit), as opposed to right to a functional public transport system or something…

I think the far-more realistic scenario is we create a colony of robots, first for experiments, then (if possible) to build out a colony that can eventually be inhabited by humans.

That’s almost precisely their business model.

Get users, retain users, turn users into recurring paying customers.

Dating apps don’t exist to find you connections, they exist to keep you hooked. They’ll give you the bare minimum of opportunities necessary to make you think they’re viable, drag it out as long as possible, pressure you to pay for premium, and if they ever developed a matching system that worked well, they’d bury it to stop half their userbase from marrying each other and uninstalling the apps.

I’ve got pretty low standards when it comes to graphics. The first game had AA issues too, but generally looked much cleaner and more polished.

Anti-aliasing? Pop-in on textures and geometry? Shadows? Looked like some z-fighting there too.

There was a nice-looking model train, though.

So many dead franchises. The videogame industry really went in an unexpected direction…

You can either try to do things the right way and cure multiple social ills, or you can do it the wrong way and end up with different rules for different adults all in an attempt to prohibition your way out of one issue.

NZ already did this and it is the most cowardly way to avoid political blowback.

There’s plenty of other options for minimising smoking. A more altruistic way is by lifting people out of poverty and tackling social disintegration, since smokers are overwhelmingly poor and disaffected.

This was my first thought as well. My second thought is all the harms we’ve caused to ourselves in the digital age, and we only start to care when it hits our pocketbooks.

Sentencing has never made much sense. Depends upon jurisdiction, how many charges prosecutors can tack on, how many you end up going to trial over, how many you get convicted over, and who is responsible for sentencing (in some places the jury sentence, in some the trial judge, in others sentencing is a separate proceeding with a separate judge).

One of the big factors here is that Masterson and his lawyers still deny everything. He didn’t cut a deal, hasn’t shown remorse since he hasn’t admitted to any wrong-doing, and the judge chose to sentence consecutively. First trial was a mistrial, second trial got 2/3 convictions, and apparently they intend to appeal. So depending upon appeal, he is currently facing somewhere between being acquitted on appeal to facing life in prison. In a lot of cases like this, some sort of deal is cut on lesser charges or lesser sentencing in exchange for admitting guilt and not dragging this on through appeal, hence typically shorter sentences. Masterson/his lawyers are instead rolling d20s and the current outcome is a 1.