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.

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.

Kinda hard to make a solid catalogue when you follow the live service trend and your projects flop one after another.

Right. So let's imagine everyone uses Puppy OS for the phone OS? How does that prevent phone manufacturers from creating a new phone every year? It doesn't. I've already pointed it out with Pixel phones, TWICE. Pixel 5 runs the same OS as Pixel 9 and obviously it hasn't prevented Google from releasing 3 different version of Pixel 6, 7 and 8, and then also Pixel Fold and 4 different version of Pixel 9. If every Pixel phone moving forward would be stuck on Android 14 they'd still be able to release a new version every year because you still get marginally better camera, marginally more memory, marginally better processor etc. Using Puppy OS wouldn't prevent manufacturers from spitting out a new model every year because the other issue with phones is that they're not repairable. If your screen breaks or battery dies or charging port stops charging you can't really fix it without paying usually over half the price of a new phone, which means people just buy a new phone. A fixed OS doesn't solve hardware failures which leads to people buying new hardware. Regular wear and tear is the main reason for e-waste, because you can't fix your fucking phone. This is literally the reason EU is forcing phone manufacturers to make replaceable batteries a thing again, because it's the primary point of failure for most phones.

Solving e-waste doesn't start with the OS, it starts by making hardware easy to repair or replace. And that's exactly what fairphone does. And it's super weird how you're both "the hardware on fairphones sucks" and "hardware necessity is an illusion". You're undermining your own points.

I've already pointed out that most Pixel phones run on the same OS, it doesn't prevent Google from churning out new phones on a yearly basis because hardware is independent from software. The same OS doesn't prevent sticking in a better camera of a better CPU, it only prevents adding new features to the OS.

What you're suggesting could work if ALL pixel phones had to run on the same OS which effectively stifles technological advantage. I don't think you fully understand the impact of your suggestion. What you're basically saying is that 99% of personal computers should be using windows 3.1 (or I guess actually MS DOS) because that's the OS Microsoft created and that's what ran on the first PCs. Even the jump to Windows 95 is impossible because it literally might not fit on hardware that's designed to run windows 3.1. You could argue that it's a silly argument as it would start now, but guess what, 40 years from now Windows 11 can be just as ancient as Windows 3.1 is right now. If we somehow figure out quantum computing for consumer market you couldn't really benefit from it because you need to support windows 11 that has no idea how quantum computing works. Not to mention it actually makes entire companies obsolete because a brand new company could make an OS that supports quantum computing and everyone switches to that company OS because that OS doesn't need to support decades old hardware.

Forced baseline OS does not solve the issue. It only creates worse issues.

I say to all manufacturers and developers just get one OS and stick with it, and then there is no further e-waste if it’s cross compatible from a dual core spec hardware upward it just runs faster the higher spec you go, there will be no hardware or OS incompatability just an ever improving OS one fits all old and new.

But where does the new hardware come from? Google has one OS that is the same over all Pixel phones, it doesn't stop them from churning out a new Pixel every year. It also doesn't solve the problems Fairphone aims to solve which are a) ethically sourced materials and b) reducing ewaste by having higher repairability.

Let's say they create their own OS. How is the OS going to make sure the underlying hardware is "fairly" acquired? It's not. Nor is the OS magically going to turn a non-repairable phone into a repairable one. That's the reason why Fairphone makes their own phones, so they can verify their materials are ethically sourced and the phone is repairable.

All fairphone are goinn to do is become e-waste just with a smaller footprint than the rest but e-waste none the less, I do not see them surviving long either.

Actually the company recycles its phones. If you don't like your Fairphone you can send it to them and based on the model and the state of the phone they'll reimburse it. And how long is long because Fairphones are over a decade old?

The idea behind the fairphone is that it's made fairly. It looks overpriced because they're paying a fair price for the raw materials + production costs. If other companies didn't exploit third world countries their phones would be priced similarly to fair phone.

You don't buy fair phone for the specs, you buy it so you can be certain some child in south Africa didn't have crawl in a mine to get the the metals that go into phones, or have a child sit in a factory putting together the chips that go into phones. Or you buy it because you don't want to throw your phone away after 3 years because you couldn't replace the battery or the screen or the charging port.

I guess it's regional bang-per-buck. I just bought a 4070 over a 7800XT because it cost only 20€ more and for that 20€ I get a better upscaler (I personally find DLSS visually better than FSR) and much better ray-tracing performance with only a marginal drop in rasterization performance. Oh and also better wattage which is a factor considering my cost of electricity, probably offsets that 20€ over the duration of me using the card. And I got the new shitty Star Wars game for free. I'm not trying to be an Nvidia fanboy here. When I decided to get a new card I was absolutely certain I'm getting an AMD card because Nvidia cards were supposed to be overpriced as hell. Well, turns out bang-per-buck Nvidia card came out on top.

I think my 4070 example is probably why they're going to target more budget cards, because xx70 cards are already outside the budget of the average gamer. If you look at the Steam hardware survey xx50 and xx60 cards make up the lion's share of the cards from the last 3 generations. There's literally only 3070 in the top 10 most popular cards, everything else xx60 or xx50. 3080 is the first xx80 card and that's only 15th most popular and 4090 is the first xx90 card while being 30th most popular. Why waste resources trying to compete with xx70, xx80 or xx90 cards when you could just beat the xx60 card and get most of the market.

I do hope their plan works out for them.

I agree the genre isn't exactly for me, but I don't think that's really relevant. Stardew Valley and Sims more or less fall in the same genre and I loved Stardew Valley and could see the appeal of Sims. I don't have an issue with those games being on the list but New Horizons just felt shallow. Outside of collecting things for the Museum there really wasn't anything that engaging. I remember also checking if I'm just playing it wrong and the sentiment from the AC vets was that the gameplay of New Leaf is better.

I did a quick check to see New Horizon is still in the same state as I remember and some people are claiming the 2.0 update made the game better so I guess I'll give it another shot one day. Maybe my opinion is dated because I haven't really played since 1.3 update.

I'm going to give my probably controversial opinion. I don't think Animal Crossing New Horizons should be on that list and the main reason it got critical acclaim is because it released at the height of Covid. Had it released any other time people would've seen that it's a shallow game where in long term it's mostly a repetition of the same menial actions. There's nothing wrong with repetition, but having to check the store every day isn't exactly the peak of compelling gameplay.

Even dimensional analysis works best with metric because sometimes you need to convert units and almost all conversion in metric are base 10, so something like 1kg/km is 1000g/1000m is 1 gram per meter. But in imperial 1 pound/mile is 16 ounces / 5280 feet is who the fuck knows how many ounces per feet.

That was a balancing patch. It used to be that bishops could only see only 2 squares and could jump over like horses.