That’s an expected tradeoff of operating an essential service is the point. It’s not as though their margin is that slim by mistake, or out of goodwill, or bad business sense. It’s meant to lead to the situation where we shop at Walmart not by choice, but in lieu of other options.
It can become surprisingly complicated with axial deadzone settings, but that’s not really important to understand. The simple concept is it’s the zone in which the stick is moved but no change in movement is registered in-game. The complication that is added is mostly related to more precise calculation of where that zone is
Metroid Prime series are more “action games” than FPS’ per se, but they are must-plays if you haven’t, & might scratch that itch. There’s a switch remaster of the first game, none yet for Prime 2 or 3 but it’s likely they’ll come out leading up to the release of the recently-announced Prime 4
Moving a joystick is fundamentally different to moving a mouse. With a joystick there is a spring constantly acting to center it - no equivalent force when using a mouse. So you need to get a feel for estimating that force and accurately counteracting it in various gameplay scenarios. That’s a completely different “muscle” to have a memory of vs. using a mouse I think
Also, modern controller joysticks generally are not great. Most have medium to large deadzones in the center by default. I’d recommend reducing them for more responsiveness. It comes with the tradeoff of being more susceptible to stick drift. But that isn’t something you should be afraid of. It’s a physical impossibility for their design to not wear over time. I’d recommend recalibrating and adjusting settings regularly. At the end of the day, replacing joystick modules only requires screws (no soldering) so it’s cheap and relatively easy.
If you’re really serious you could get some hall effect joystick modules. That way you wouldn’t need to recalibrate often and could keep a consistently small deadzone setting without encountering drift. i.e. default settings from like dualshock 2, when stick drift was just as apparent but people hadn’t gone crazy over it yet.
Minecraft would be fine for learning fps movement in a relaxed setting.
Same issue, merger buyouts. e.g. Safeway into Woolies in Aus, Progressive into FAL into Woolies in NZ. (not to mention FS NI was just created 2 years ago via the merger of FS Auckland and FS Wellington, and now is merging with FS SI). Nothing short of stopping merger buyouts creating monopolies in essential services will stop this problem, and I have no confidence it’ll happen anytime soon. The fines they cop will be less than the revenue generated by increasing margin 1%, so it’ll forever be on that edge where you’re just not quite ripped off enough to let yourself and your kids go hungry
It was the wrong question and I just guided you on how it was wrong. For it to be the correct question you should have qualified what you meant by using that phrase. I’m sorry you didn’t understand that.
The post headline is “each Bitcoin transaction uses 4,200 gallons of water”. This generalisation is based on one Bitcoin mining operation which upon cursory inspection is actually a LNG electric company. I’m speculating but likely the reason they mine Bitcoin is to make it worth keeping the gas fire on during off-peak.
If you’re going to use a single operation to generalise about the whole network, why use this small weird outlier and not the bigger companies like Riot, Bitfarms, Genesis? I could turn around and say “each bitcoin transaction is fully renewable” based on the operations of any of those companies, and the claim would be even more substantiated than that headline is by that report. But it would still be wrong. Neither example is representative of the energy required by Bitcoin.
Now, I’m not coming to the party trying to push Bitcoin as a transactional currency, like you seemed to have a notion of it trying to compete as. I don’t think it’s much good for that. But I’m not about to go believing some made up shit about how a computer solving some cryptographic puzzles has a comparable environmental impact to filling an entire swimming pool. Gimme a break dude.
You’d need to qualify what you mean by ‘exchanging any value of money’. If it’s handing a note of currency to your friend, the energy cost of circulating the bill is associated. If you mean someone not in the same room, then you need to accept the associated caveats of running the traditional finance system e.g. ATM costs, financed emissions, and other essential components of the fractional reserve bank concept. Totally aside from the server requirements to physically run the network. Without all of those things, you can’t exchange any value of money.
Traditional finance almost certainly consumes as much water as Bitcoin on a per-capita basis, and on an absolute basis traditional finance uses way, way more. The difference is the global network of banking operations is opaque. For Greenidge Generation, their 2.5EH/s hashrate is a part of their product, advertising it is a sales tactic. Just makes it a bit less abstract to pick apart and then make broad generalisations about the sum hashrate of the network based on this LNG-powered site the report is based on. For what it’s worth, that’s not really a feasible way to mine Bitcoin. It suggests energy generation is their real product.
The real answer is a rhetorical question: what is the impetus for the traditional finance system to operate sustainably, either now or in future? Because for Bitcoin miners it’s clear. The monetary policy essentially dictates it over time. Reward yield decreases for the same amount of work. You don’t need to get into whether it’s environmentally sustainable, because it’s not economically sustainable unless you’re generating a fully renewable energy source.
To draw a comparison between bitcoin energy consumption and water use is plainly seeking to remove context from the conditional justification for Bitcoin’s energy use, which has nothing to do with water. It’s deliberately sensationalistic. Anything that consumes energy can be described as consuming or wasting an equivalent amount of water. As a statement on whether that consumption is justified, it’s meaningless.
Whether the energy consumption of an action is justified depends on the efficiency of the energy use, the practical aim of the action, whether it would replace any more or less efficient actions, and the energy source.
Simply stating it has no purpose and that the energy use of Bitcoin is somehow analogous to mass water wastage, does not seek to investigate whether Bitcoin’s energy use is justified. It’s disingenuous and reactionary.
It is ridiculously overpriced and stepped on a hundred times. According to statistics bureau numbers though, use has more tripled over the last year alone
There isn’t really much peer reviewed evidence suggesting vaping is significantly harmful in a tobacco harm reduction context, though. It’s all supportive of vaping, that’s why it’s been embraced by many medical organisations across much of Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. The amount of tobacco harm prevention vaping is doing in places like Kuwait right now, where up to 50% of males smoke, is fucking incredible. Australia’s blindness on this issue is a farce. They, like most western governments, are addicted to tobacco tax. It’s 4% of our overall tax income. That’s a proportion of all taxation in our economy, including all the land, property, goods, services taxes. An entire 4% of it comes just from perpetuating tobacco sales. Financially conservative governments aren’t giving that away for free. Internally they’re like “we’ll worry about addressing the leading cause of preventable death when we get voted in for another term, otherwise it won’t work out for us politically”. That’s why we have a nation of Labor state premiers that almost unilaterally support sensible ecig regulation, yet the federal health minister from the same political party has this curious unexplained blindspot on the issue and just parrots big pharma talking points about nicotine, while nicorette isn’t even kept behind the counter.
I think its use in the field was pretty limited. It was something a scientist at the company I work for was telling me about. They were curious given all the shit chat about a lack of longterm evidence. They wondered what is the actual earliest record of this sort of concept? They ended up finding out about experiments done with this device in some kind of wartime medical journal they showed me. We were pretty tickled by the journal article mentioning propylene glycol was the substance these old researchers were atomising. I tried finding it again to link something, but I haven’t been able to find it yet.
Same concept also developed and used in WW2 as an anti-chemical weapon device. Basically a grenade that bursts into a cloud of PG, trapping airborne chemical particulates and pulling them down to the ground.
Disposable nicotine vapes, or any other kind of nicotine vape, have been banned federally for import other than via a special access scheme for the last few decades since nicotine was included on the poisons standard.
Just want to clarify that the actual change here is limited to banning 0mg disposables. Since Mark Butler’s health department has decided to continue the trend of totally failing to act on sensible ecig regulation, an entirely expected and totally avoidable de facto standard shipping method of stealth packing nicotine products amongst 0mg has resulted. The China suppliers know that we have zero capacity to detect nicotine at the border and that every word that comes out of Butler’s mouth on the topic is bullshit. They can just flout the law and get away with it. There’s literally no system set up to hold them to account. Border Force aren’t doing GC-MS analysis on your Amazon packages. The only reason the headline says ‘to be banned from January 2024’ is because the government don’t want you to realise they are currently banned, and in fact always have been.
Sounds like he reckons that just keeping an eye out for anything that looks like a disposable shipment will do the trick now? Aw yeah, tell me more about how you don’t understand the scale of freight logisticsin Australia. Is it going to invalidate the existing prescriptions for those products via special access scheme? I’ve had a nicco script for 2 years and haven’t had a single parcel checked.
To wit: if you read this article and didn’t come out of it thinking “shit I’ve gotta hop on AliExpress and get on this for a quick buck”, it’s because you got bullshitted. It’s gonna be creeping up to dethrone cocaine as the hottest Aus consumer commodity 2024. Cheers Mark
There is an underground city in Gaza. Terrorists hide there. It would be strange under the circumstances for there not to be tunnels leading to/from the hospital. The IDF’s claim is most likely true.
The “other side” of the argument is not a rejection of this, it is to point out that these circumstances were manufactured by apartheid, and that they do not justify Israel’s ethnic cleansing campaign
They’re separate problems, linked mostly in terms of humans being a cause of both. With CFCs/HCFCs now phased out, the ozone layer is slowly repairing itself and should be back to pre-1980 levels in the next 30-40 years or so. This will be good for helping to prevent skin cancer, and it will marginally affect the climate (e.g. lower ozone is associated with lower humidity), but it’s not going to do much to mitigate global warming.
I’m really meaning the lack of option not to consume fast-moving consumer goods, rather than the option to pay a premium for them elsewhere. When their market position is similar to like an outlet for government rations except for private profit, their net is essentially what was skimmed off the top of free enterprise. 2.66% is just the current maximum amount that is justifiably worth without doing societal harm