I’m curious what query you used.

It’s people having their battery die while they wait for an open charger.

I’m more curious about how it affects the sale of other drinks and foods.

Do fast food sales drop because of the increased cost of their primary drink options? Do people turn to water as an alternative or do they fill the hole with another option like alcohol, tea, or coffee?

Thank you. This made no sense to me at first.

Which is why the German bubble is popping.

I don’t think housing will ever be cheap again. It’s been too over-consolidated and the game of corporate monopoly has already started. Unless we get strong regulations about how much housing property a person or company can own, we are stuck high housing prices.

I used Smart Audiobook Player to listen to an audiobook recently and it worked great.

This is a good tool for visualizing your raid needs from your capacity and total number of drives.

https://www.seagate.com/products/nas-drives/raid-calculator/

I’ll preface that I’m no raid expert, just a nerd that uses it occasionally.

The main benefit of most raid configurations is the redundancy they provide. If you lose one drive, you do not lose any data. It’s kinda obvious how you can have 1:1 redundancy, you just have an exact copy of the drive. But there are ways to split data into three chunks so that you can rebuild the data from any two chunks, and 5 chunks so that you can loose and two chunks. Truly understand how raid does this could easily be an entire college course.

Raid 0 is the exception. All it does is “join together” a bunch of drives into one disk. And if you lose an individual disk you likely will lose most of your data.

Another big difference is read/write speed. From my understanding, every raid configuration is slower to read and write than if you were using a single drive. Each raid configuration is varying levels of slower than the “base speed”

I typically use raid 5 or 6, since that gives some redundancy, but I can keep most of my total storage space.

The main thing in all of this is to keep an eye on drive health. If you lose more drives than your array can handle, all of your data is gone. From my understanding, there is no easy way to get the data off a broken raid array.

He might be, but I still get unpleasant vibes from how he writes.

Yeah, I’d rather not if he talks like he writes. Again, I am fully on board with his message, but he writes like someone who doesn’t know how to have a conversation with another person.

This writer seems like a proper neck beard. I 100% agree with most of what they say, but this feels like it’s straight out of 4chann

Edit: I read a few other articles of his and watch a few of his videos/interviews. This article is an extreme side of him apparently. I still think he is extremely socially awkward, he can’t hold eye contact for longer than a millisecond and struggles to answer questions in less than twenty words.

I do fully agree with almost everything I’ve heard him say. I just don’t like the way he says it.

If you cook 300 meals per year, you’re not the primary demographic of McDonald’s, at least for my local one. Most people I know who eat there, eat there very regularly… Like multiple times per week.

I personally think it’s that people lack the time, motivation, and/or knowledge to cook themselves. I can make a cheeseburger and fries at home for about $3-5 in about thirty minutes, including cleanup. Compared to a $15 meal, it’s roughly the equivalent of saving $20/h.

Another issue could be home size is way down. If you live alone, you can’t buy one hamburger bun, you have to buy 8. You can’t buy a quarter pound of ground beef, minimum package size is usually 1 lb. If you buy the material to cook one meal, you’re committing to cook three to seven more within the next 10 days. So you’ve signed up for leftovers or up to four hours of cooking.

A start could be reducing the crazy subsidies cattle farming gets. We could reduce carbon emissions and have money to fund green projects.

It’s irrelevant if it’s in the terms or not if Sony knows for a fact that most people will not check the terms. It doesn’t matter if people should read the terms, it doesn’t matter how the terms are specified. That information is buried in a 10,000 word contract no one is going to read (the PSN Store terms and conditions is actually about 10,000 words, over an hour to read)

Customers could “buy” a product with the understanding that they owned the product in perpetuity. Sony then removed the product from the customer after the purchase without providing a refund.

You’re not even trying to understand the opposing view, so I’m kinda done with this conversation.

The fact that it’s video or a game is irrelevant to the argument, but I have amended my comment.

Second, I specifically said how they “understand the terms” because like .01% of customers read the terms and conditions before buying, even for super large purchases like cars and houses most people don’t read the entire contract. It’s a flaw in the legal system that allows companies to hide shady practices like what Sony is doing and force customers to just take it. Even if you read it, you’d need a law degree to properly understand what the document is conveying.

Most people understand the process of buying media as “I give you money, you give me content” not “I give you money, you give me a license to watch the content” it’s not explicit about the lack of ownership. If someone asked you "what movies do you own, hopefully you’re not going to be a smart ass and say “technically production studios are the only ones who own movies anymore”

You’re still jumping the moral argument and going straight to the legal one. I’m not arguing the legal one because it’s clear that privacy is not legal (by definition)

However if you sell someone a movie and hide a clever contract (that you know for a fact the customer will not read) in the deal so that you can invalidate the content at any time you feel like it, Don’t expect me to cry you a river when your customer bypasses your asinine contract by making a local copy for personal use.

If the terms are not explicitly explained in understandable language, then morally terms are non-existent and the deal should be revoked with both parties receiving their property back.

They should either be required to refund those purchases or they shouldn’t be allowed to remove them.

No disagreement there, but we live in a world where they absolutely can and will do this stuff and get away with it with no consequences. Until either of those two options you propose are reached, I see no moral issue with pirating a game content you paid for and can no longer play.

I’m not talking about the morality of a person who was already pirating it before, or pirate games videos not affected by this issue. Just a case where a person bought a game content from Sony, who then removed their purchase without compensation due to reasons beyond the terms and conditions the customer expected.

It kinda does add some validity to the argument. The seller can just take away a product without compensating you for it, in most situations we call that theft. If they are going to steal the content from you, morally I see no problem stealing it back.

It’s of course still illegal, but I wouldn’t say it’s immoral in this situation.

I started writing an “here’s why I disagree” reply, but I slowly realized that I kinda agree. Sword Art Online was a pretty bad anime, but SAO Abridged used the same characters and plot points to tell a different type of story and was absolutely terrific

I think the main problem I have is with the scale. If you’re remaking something, and you’re expecting more people to see the new thing than saw the original, then you should stay faithful to the original (not shot for shot remake, but keep things as close as reasonable) I think I feel this way because if I were an author, I’d be crushed if more people saw the bastardized version of my life’s work than saw my original.

There is also the issue with a large majority of recent remakes being quick cash grabs. These do nothing but tarnish the original work by driving away people who may have eventually seen the original.

I think a large part of people’s issues with the recent trend of adapting/recreating existing media is how the director changed the intent or “soul” of the work.

A story is more than its plot points. It’s how The Lion King and Hamlet have the same story bones, but have wildly different morals and audiences. So when a work is adapted for a different medium, stripping it down to its plot points kinda kills the soul of the work. The Avatar animated series and the movie (that doesn’t exist) share a lot of plot points, but the movie is clearly soulless because they didn’t understand what made the show great, and just retold the story with a slight spin.

The Last of Us worked so well because they understood why it was good, and only made changes “in the spirit” of the original work. They didn’t try to put a spin on the story, they just adapted it for the new medium.

That’s why understanding the work is so important when you are adapting it to a different medium. If you just transplant the plot points without understanding what makes it good, it’s going to be soulless. If you try to just use the characters and setting to tell a different story, it’s also going to be soulless because those characters aren’t made to tell that story. Make your own characters and tell your own story if you don’t want to stick to the spirit of the original work.