Erm, most games? You're better off asking which games people might remember 20 years from now. You ask me what games released in 2004 off the to of my head I could only remember Halo 2, Half-life 2 and Doom 3 (and this one I remember because of Half-life 2). I'm 100% certain I'm forgetting some huge release from 2004. But that's the thing, only the really memorable games will be remembered.

I could probably mention 20-30 games from the 00s (maybe 50-60)because some series released a lot of games in that time frame. For example Half-life 2, episode 1 and episode 2 make up 3 games, but I remember all of them because of Half-life 2) , but over a decade thousands of games were released. The vast majority of games will be forgotten.

20 years from now maybe some of man like myself remembers Space Marine 2, but it will get wiped from the collective memory.

He's not talking about the communist manifesto, he's talking about Das Kapital. If you don't care to read it there are YouTube summaries such as this one . If you want to get straight into the meat of the subject you can start from chapter 4 and if you think it's all stupid take the 5-6 minutes to listen to chapter 7 so you'd at least know where socialists are coming from when they say capitalists are stealing your money.

How about you make an example where supply actually matters.

Since you're so incapable of thinking for yourself I'll go through it again with everything you mentioned. Same prerequisite except now everyone has a phone and excess phones turn instantly to waste, or do you need a point by point explanation on how excess supply turns into waste?

Scenario 1: Every year 1000 new phones get released.

• Y1: 500 people buy new phones and sell their old phones. 500 people buy used phones and throw away 500 phones because nobody wants to buy the previous phone. 500 phones just go to waste. End of the year e-waste is 1000 phones
• Y2: Same thing. End of year waste is 2000 phones.
• Y3: Same thing. End of year waste is 3000 phones.
• ...
• Y10: Still the same thing. End of year waste is 10k phones.

Scenario 2: Every 3 years 1000 new phones get released.

• Y1: 500 people buy new phones and sell their old phones. 500 people buy used phones and throw away 500 phones because nobody wants to buy the previous phone. 500 new phones go to waste. End of the year e-waste is 1000 phones
• Y2: People keep using the phones they have. End of the year e-waste is 1000 phones
• Y3: People keep using the phones they have. End of the year e-waste is 1000 phones
• Y5: New phone comes out. 500 people and sell their old phones. 500 people buy used phones and throw away 500 phones because nobody wants to buy the previous phone. 500 new phones go to waste. End of the year e-waste is 2000 old phones
• Y6: People keep using the phones they have. End of the year e-waste is 2000 phones
• Y7: People keep using the phones they have. End of the year e-waste is 2000 phones
• Y8: New phone comes out. 500 people and sell their old phones. 500 people buy used phones and throw away 500 phones because nobody wants to buy the previous phone. 500 new phones go to waste. End of the year e-waste is 3000 old phones
• Y0: People keep using the phones they have. End of the year e-waste is 3000 phones
• Y10: People keep using the phones they have. End of the year e-waste is 3000 phones

As you can see. Even with supply meets the demand exactly you generate waste if you release a new phone every year. If the supply exceeds the demand it generated waste. I don't see how it could be made any clearer beyond also going over your comment point by point.

Why would you make your scenario supply constrained?

Because how do you create a secondary market that would buy used phones? I could've gone with "people are poor" but that is much harder to put into an example. The supply constraint itself doesn't matter, but I did my best with the new example.

Your argument is simply if we sold less phones, less would go to e-waste, and duh.

Nope. My argument was that if we made less phones less would go to e-waste. That also covers unsold phones that go straight into waste as evident from my new example.

That wasn’t debate, it was whether releasing new phones every year was wasteful vs new phones being released every 2-3 years.

If you release a new phone every year you manufacture more phones. I guess technically you can manufacture the same amount of the same model for 2-3 years as you would manufacture yearly new phone. But that makes no sense from an enterprising point of view because you reach market saturation and the phones simply don't get sold, you're just manufacturing a loss for the company. Even if you manufacture the same model yearly you're still going to manufacture them less (due to demand dropping) than if you made a new model every year.

Your scenario also assuming people buy used or they just don’t have a phone. People who buy a used phone generally do so instead of buying a new phone.

If you paid attention you would've noticed that in both previous scenarios 800-900 people bought used phones and only 100-200 people bought brand new phones. I did that deliberately because you argued that reselling the phone has an effect when it really doesn't. At the end of the line the person who bought the last used phone throws their current phone away because you can't sell that to anyone. Which means as long as phone is manufactured regardless of whether it gets sold or not or resold or not, eventually it will go in the bin as e-waste. The best way to reduce waste is to not produce excessively like we're doing right now.

Are you stupid? Let's say we have 1000 people and they all want the latest phone, all manufactured phones get bought and everyone sells their old phones. And phones don't break.

Scenario 1: Every year 200 new phones get released.

• Year 1. 200 most willing to pay the highest price buy a new phone, 800 are without a phone
• Year 2. The same 200 buy the latest model and sell their old one. The next 200 get the "new" used phone. 600 are without phones.
• Year 3, 4 and 5 I imagine are self-explanatory. By the end of year 5 everyone has phone.
• Year 6. The most willing buy the 200 new phones and sell their old phone. The next group buy the previous group phones and sell their current phone. The last group has nobody to sell to because nobody wants their phone. 200 phones go into e-waste.
• Year 7. Goes like year 6 except now there's a total of 400 phones in e-waste.
• Year 8, 9 and 10 follow the same pattern. By the end of year 10 there 1000 phones in e-waste.
• Year 20. By the end of the year there will be 3000 phones in e-waste.

Scenario 2: 100 phones get released (to better stimulate the real world because someone is going release a phone anyway, but you can also imagine 200 phones releasing every 2 years as the numbers will the same for every even year).

• Year 1. 100 people get a phone.
• Year 2. 100 people buy the new phone and sell the old one. 100 people buy the old phone.
• Years 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are the same pattern. By the end of year 10 everyone has a phone
• Year 11 the first year phones go into e-waste because nobody wants them. Total 100 phones in e-waste.
• Year 12 the next 100 phones go into waste. Total 200 phones in e-waste.
• Years 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 are the same pattern.
• Year 20. By the end of the year 1000 phones are e-waste.
• Year 40. By the end of the year 3000 phones are e-waste.

It literally cannot be empirically untrue because what I said is mathematically true. Let's say that in both scenario 1 and scenario 2 at the end of year 50 they decide to throw away all phones and never create another phone again. In scenario 1 there would be 10 000 e-waste phones. In scenario 2 there would be 5000 e-waste phones. The more you create the more waste will come down the line. If you want less waste, make less phones.

And before you go "but recycling?" only about 20% of e-waste gets recycled and the recycling process doesn't recycle all the waste.

Trade ins and selling old phones doesn't really reduce e-waste. What reduces e-waste is manufacturing less phones.

So all subscription games are gambling? What about Fallout 76? It's not gambling if you just buy the game but if you buy the subscription the game becomes gambling despite the game fundamentally stays the same and the subscription doesn't add any RNG to the game?

In that case aren't most games gambling? You fight a boss and you die. You have failed and you lose progress of the boss fight which means the failed fight was a waste of time. Gambling.

My actual point is that despite us having a relatively good intuition on what is gambling, defining what gambling really is is pretty hard. Be too broad and you will end up marking non-gambling things as gambling, be too narrow and you get things like lootboxes that definitely feel like gambling but don't actually fit most legal definitions of gambling.

Your definition is so broad it encompasses almost all games and as such is useless when you want to use it to regulate gambling on games.

That depends on the gun but at the very least no slower than one shot.

Right, so let's assume they're lying to some extent? How much of the number do you think is made up? 50%?

Can he be swapped? I thought the reason Biden got swapped is because he wasn't locked in yet, but now the candidates are locked in.

My guess is that both were trying to catch Leclerc's slipstream and were focused on Leclerc and not each other. That said if I had to assign blame I think it's more on Perez than Sainz.

The unmodded experience absolutely isn't a casual game. Due to the semi random nature of the game I actually rate it harder than dark souls.

It doesn't have the same roadblock encounters souls games have but you can learn how to pass them in the souls games. However in Noita you need to learn the systems and then use your knowledge of the systems to bypass the problems in a more dynamic way. For example I wanted to carve a path through lava. Usually I've done it with a freezing spell, but I didn't have it. Instead I had found lava to blood spell, so I turned parts of lava to blood which then reacted with the rest of lava to create volcanic rock, which I then dug through.

For a more casual experience I recommend using mods for whatever gives you the most trouble, because there's a lot of that can give you problems. You can learn at your own pace because it does get easier the more you get used to the systems in the game.

I definitely recommend experiencing Noita, it's one of the most unique games I've ever played. It's so unique I actually have a hard time putting it into a specific genre. I usually just call it a roguelite Metroidvania. It starts out as a roguelite but the more you play it the more it becomes like a Metroidvania where there's usually a specific mechanic preventing access to other areas but there can be multiple solutions to the mechanic and your solution depends whatever things the roguelite aspect of the game gave you.

You're not paying but someone is. The servers aren't running for free.

But that doesn't keep him in the race, there are moron candidates with moron voters in other countries but they generally drop out pretty quickly. What keeps Trump in the race is mostly the electoral college but also the first past the post voting. Trump wouldn't have a shot at winning if the electoral college didn't skew the value of individual votes and first past the post effectively limits the amount of candidates you can have.

I think Alonso will move on from F1 in the next 2-3 years and I don't see Max going to AM before 2027 (unless RB really drop the ball in 2025). However Papa Stroll is selling shares of the team which means as more and more time goes by there will be more and more pressure from other shareholders to drop Stroll, unless he magically becomes a great driver (which I seriously doubt).

I wouldn't be surprised if in the next 5 years both Lance and Fernando are no longer in F1.

Well, for starters Xbox was dead on arrival, they had no system sellers lined up and the series S has held this generation Xbox back since the beginning. Sony on the other hand started off well, but then got the GaaS hard on and almost all of their gaas projects are failing hard. That's why they barely have a library of exclusives.

Not to mention this generation has also been a technological flop (not just on the consoles side but also on the PC side). The next big thing to change gaming is ray tracing, but the tech is still too raw to fully utilize it. Because of that we're largely getting the same tech as last gen, just higher fidelity.

And considering console exclusives started coming to PC I think there's even less of a consumer pull towards consoles. A lot of PC gamers owned a console and now they don't need one because the get to play their console games on PC at higher quality with better performance.

The next generation needs to be marvelous or I think console gaming, as we currently know it, will be dead.

I think her campaign is what an actual campaign is supposed to look like, it just looks incredible when you compare it to the dumpster fire that is Trumps campaign.

I'm not sure what you were trying to accomplish but all I'm seeing is you agreeing that there is a wage gap. You argument was "it’s often that women outearn men." Which you've now clarified that post marriage and post child they clearly do not. So before marriage or before a child they should, where's the data? The "useless" unadjusted data shows a smaller wage gap in younger employees (who are much less likely to be married or have children) but there's still a wage gap in many EU countries.

I wish I had your confidence. You pull the "data doesn't prove it" move and then won't even do the bare minimum to verify if you're talking out of your ass. Based on 2022 data men on average earned 12% more. It didn't even take me a minute to find this data. One Google search and you would've instantly known that you're wrong, but you're so confident in you being right you don't even need to check if you're wrong.