You're not missing something. Much like Disney's "Snow White" was called a "success" despite bombing both at the box office and on streaming, the corporate media stooges will blithely state the complete opposite in an attempt to hide abject failure. Ubisoft is no different.

AC fans waited years to get a game with samurai's based in feudal Japan. What they got is a "samurai" game with no actual Japanese samurai protagonist. Ubisoft's reason for this is painfully obvious to everyone. This is why Japanese consumers have largely rejected it and has a lot to do with why sales have tanked overall.

There's a saying for this that ends with "go broke." It's slipping my mind at the moment, but I'm sure it'll come to me eventually.

If more companies would not only put a monetary bounty on these crooks but also specify "dead or alive," perhaps it would start to put a dent in their activities. They're already operating from countries that either look the other way or actively assist them in their activities. Putting a death mark on them ups the stakes considerably and allows the use of...ahem...alternate actors...ahem...that can operate beyond the law to get actual results.

However, if you're a user in certain countries, like France or Canada, opening the app shows a collection of pirated movies, such as Venom: The Last Dance, Joker: Folie a Deux, and Terrifier 3.

So...nothing anyone wants to actually see then.

That's the context missing from this article summary: in any of the realistic security scenarios the article describes, use of multi-factor is mandatory. You can get really lazy about passwords when you've got a good secure MFA solution required as well.

If you read the standard though,they made a whole bunch of assumptions that are also unrealistic in the real world that make following this advice WITHOUT using MFA suicidal. Ex. they say just force password changes if you think the password's been compromised. Ok, fine. And how long is it before you realize that a password's been popped? Maybe not until someone's used a zero day to own your whole environment. Whoops.

Defense in depth is a thing.

"Most" is pretty vague. Which ones don't overlap? Do you even know? Have you read both? In full? Project 2025 is 922 pages long. Somehow I doubt you've read it, instead relying on the media to tell you what to think and say and do.

What if "most" of the overlap are things that are relatively mainstream, non-controversial things? What if the only places they don't overlap just happen to be the Big Boogeyman Ideas you're so terrified of? Did you ever consider that enough to bother reviewing both proposals? Or did you simply hear "Trump = Project 2025 and Project 2025 = bad, therefore Trump = bad"?

The sheer lack of curiosity about the stances some people are willing to take is stunning sometimes. Presumably you have a prefrontal cortex. You may wish to use it from time to time to think on your own and come up with your own opinions.

And yet who will build, program, and maintain this AI-controlled fleet? Another AI-controlled facility? Who will build, program, and maintain that? Or is it turtles all the way down?

At some point humans have to be involved, and those humans will be gainfully employed and benefit from their labor. Those who adapt to this new economic reality will prosper. Those who do not, will not.

This is nothing new. When mass production put artisans out of work, the same hue and cry was raised. The human race as a whole is incalculably better off today than it was when that happened. Those who try to stand against the march of technology to maintain the status quo will always get steamrollered. And we should not weep for them, for we all benefit from the march of progress. If you truly believe in the betterment of humanity, you cannot allow the creation of a society where stagnation is rewarded.

I literally did.

You may be too retarded and emotional ("who the fuck are 'they'?", "like a fucking sheep", "biggest non-scientific bullshit I've heard in my life", etc.). If you're dying to prove to the internet that I'm wrong, go for it. Get your data, do your math, and show the internet.

Best of luck.

My initial observation stands. In fact, your asking irrelevant questions and demanding proof for math only strengthens the validity of that observation.

It really is how it works more often than not. Look at the reproducibility crisis for example.

The earth hasn't been around long enough (more specifically the beginning of single celled life on earth -- something like 3.4 billion years ago) for evolution to actually work the way they say it does (or has been observed in DNA differences like between humans and chimps -- and that's only a 2% difference). Some biologists/evolutionists recognize this problem, but like Science always does, they're being laughed at. Which is fine, cause they're just making it up too.

Come on. Anyone with a basic understanding of the topic would know that I'm referring to the rate of fixation.

Evolution is fake and literally impossible. It can't hold up to basic math (fixed mutation rate vs time). Your using its banning as the bar for "something fucking majorly gone wrong in the schooling system" just demonstrates how inverted and screwed up the western school system really is.

So the moral of the story is early buyers will pay full price while getting a buggy, unbalanced, unfinished product. Meanwhile, those who wait will generally get discounts, see fewer bugs, and more polished content.

This is why I almost never buy anything as soon as it's released.

Also not (necessarily) true. Dissolved CO2 can be consumed by algae and seagrasses in the ocean, converting it to biomass -- where carbon remains largely sequestered when the organism dies -- and oxygen.

Almost but not quite. You left out a few relevant factors.

Personal bias - despite attempts to eradicate it, it still exists. A scientist who has their reputation staked on a particular theory or outcome will tend to favor that outcome, disregard outcomes that don't agree with their position, or both. The recent LK-99 "room temp superconductor" is an example of this.

Funding bias - Scientists don't work for free, and even if they did, research itself is an expensive endeavor. This requires funding from external sources, usually government but sometimes major industries contribute as well. Both these patrons tend to fund research that confirms whatever policy or product they wish to push. Likewise, funding for other things either doesn't get funded or could disqualify you for future funding.

Community peer pressure - Despite the stereotype, contemporary science is largely that of conformity. Mavericks are generally frowned upon, laughed at, or ostracized. This has historical precedence. Major luminaries like Einstein, Bohr, etc. were regarded as crackpots when they first challenged the establishment before they were recognized as prophets of truth. Very few people have the courage to stand against such as this, hence conformity and groupthink are more normal than most people suspect or are willing to admit.

Sounds like a great idea! With the best of intentions! What could possibly go wrong?

Go ahead and try such a mandate. It will accelerate the trend of businesses moving out of states requiring them.