But the most efficient gambling provider is the one that extracts the most money from its customers. Helping gambling companies be successful is a net loss to society.

If you invested a billion dollars at a conservative 5% interest rate, you could employ 200 people at 250k a year on the interest alone.

I couldn’t bring myself to pay the hefty monthly fee though, knowing my kid’s interest would wane and then her creation would be forever inaccessible unless I continued to pay.

One thing I would have gladly paid for is asset packs, being able to adapt some great sprites and background art would have been a killer feature.

CMS’s for news publishers have distinct fields for link title and thumbnail images (appearing on the linking page) and article title and hero images (appearing on the destination page).

This seems redundant until you consider that the context for linking pages and the article page are different. Having clean summaries for each page on Wikipedia seems like it would be useful in many places.

There is no expectation of “reasonable effort” to not selling alcohol to minors. It’s flat out illegal and heavily penalised. Nor is there a requirement for companies to find a way to sell alcohol to adults without asking for ID.

I get the concern you have, but you’re arguing against a scarecrow version of the legislation.

> A provider of an age-restricted social media platform must take reasonable steps to prevent age-restricted users having accounts with the age-restricted social media platform.

It doesn’t specifically require them to collect IDs. However it does say the opposite and that the site can only collect government ID or a digital ID information if:

> the provider provides alternative means [not involving IDs] for an individual to assure the provider that the individual is not an age-restricted user; and (b) those means are reasonable in the circumstances.

I’m not going to argue that the legislation is perfect. But it doesn’t actually do what most opponents are accusing it of doing.

Huge parts of America hate EVs. There is endless debate about nuclear vs clean energy vs coal, which prevents any change from happening.

After all, a culture on 1:1 communication has a lot of downsides. The same question gets asked repeatedly, replies don’t become searchable, the same people (usually the most experienced) end up being constantly tapped for answers

I'm left leaning, but I think jobs in rural areas, inflation, cost of living are all valid concerns that should be addressed regardless of who is in power. I disagree to varying extents with Trump's stance on abortion, immigration and gun control. But I also understand why people have a different opinion to me.

What I see online is a continuing anger towards the left and a determination to not only discredit their opinions, but also punish them for their dissenting views. There is this gleeful perception that it's time for payback.

But the reason a multinational like Microsoft might promote a growth mindset are different. Employees who are open minded are able to work with others and collaborate more effectively. Employees who actively seek new data and try to invalidate their preconceptions can be more successful in large sprawling organisations.

This statement is deliberately worded to avoid making a promise because Elon knows it is effectively a big fat lie. To date Tesla have solved the same problems that others have already solved. You can’t extrapolate progress because what comes next are the really hard problems that no one has solved. Even if Tesla is able solve those problems, there is zero chance that they can move at the same speed. They have 50% of an autonomous robot, but the next half is going to take 90% of the effort.

This is the usual smoke and mirrors. Elon shows off a tech demo using incremental gains and falsely represents how long it will take them to deliver on a revolutionary product.