Someone who gets some large amount of money and thinks "hey, this looks like a lot of money, I will never be able to spend it for the rest of my life, might as well stop working and do something for fun" does not become one of the richest people on the planet.

For example - I work because I need money. If I won the lottery or got a large amount of money some other way, I would put the money in some index funds or wherever that's low risk and live off the returns without having to work anymore. There are things I want to do and I need money and time to do them, but money itself is not my goal.

For the people who do become one of the richest people on the planet, money is their goal. They will work more hours, do anything to get more and more money. This personality trait is what lets them go to the top. However, it cannot be turned off, so, even if the person makes trillion dollars, he will work to make even more.

There's a game called Factorio. In it you crash land on some planet and have to build a rocket to launch a satellite in space, to do that you need to build an entire factory that takes ore, processes it, makes components and so on, until you manage to make the rocket. Technically the game ends when you launch the rocket, but you can play after that, improving and expanding the factory to be able to launch many rockets. People have put many hours into playing the game, even after if "ends" to have the most rockets per minute or some other self-made goal. The game is over, you "won", so why are you still playing? Because it's fun, there are goals still to be achieved and so on. The same with ultra rich and making money.

Monopoly is not 100%. Steam has effective monopoly, so does Windows.

Sure, as a user, you have many choices. You can choose to use Linux, you can choose a different game store. However, game developers don't really have the choice.

Let's say a game developer makes a PC game that does not run on Windows. It probably would not sell that great.
Let's say a game developer chooses to not sell the game on Steam and use something else instead. It probably would not sell that great.

That means, game developers absolutely have to make PC games for Windows and sell them on Steam.
So, Windows and Steam have a monopoly. It does not necessarily have to be a bad thing, but we should recognize it as it is.

The monopoly is not that "nobody can offer an alternative", its that there are no real alternatives for whatever reason.

Sure, and then there would be meaningful competition to Steam? How many people would use that alternative? Epic games tried really hard to provide an alternative and failed.

So, if you are a game developer, you absolutely have to sell your game on Steam. Sure, you can do mail orders or create your own online store, but nobody would buy from you that way. So, the developers have no choice if they want to be able to sell their games.

I like high framerate and when I am using a camera that has the option to film in 50p or 50i, I use that. To me, it looks so much better than lower framerate.

I do not like motion interpolation, it looks bad, so if the source is 25p or lower, I just watch the slide show as it is.

When I shoot on film, I use an even lower framerate, because film is expensive.

However, since a lot of people like the look of low framerate video, I think that TV manufacturers should create the option of taking a high framerate source and dropping every second frame. It should not be difficult to do that (certainly easier than motion interpolation) and people could watch live shows as if they were movies shot on film.

I do not use motion smoothing, but I love when the source is 50p or 50i. To me, it looks so much better than 25p. Whenever I film something with a video camera I set it to 50i or 50p (depending on what the camera can do).

When I shoot on film, its 16fps or 18fps, because film is expensive.

However, AFAIK, some people like the low framerate of film, apparently it looks like "a movie" then. I don't really get it, but for them, the TV could just drop every second frame to convert a 50p source into 25p.

And yet, when we calculate gravity we do not add up all the subatomic particles of the Earth and especially other planets. So, what would change if a planet 1000 lightyears away was a big blob with the same mass and not composed of subatomic particles? We would definitely not see the difference, unless someone goes there and checks, but by the time maybe the planet would be loaded, just like what happens in video games.

Also, if something is really far away, do you need to simulate it with full detail. A galaxy billion light years away may just be a blob of light instead of lots of individual starts. It's not like we can see a difference.

The problem with this is that usually the way governments try to do it is by limiting the freedom of people who have nothing to do with teenagers (they are not parents, teachers etc and probably do not interact with teenagers at all).

And then you get rules that forbid people from stepping one meter in the sea, because the sea today has bigger waves than a small lake.

How about this - all teenagers get locked up in padded rooms and given no tools to commit suicide. It would prevent all deaths of this type? Does it sound wrong? It should. Sometimes, freedom and privacy is worth the increased risk.

For example, the topic in question. Chatbot limiting access to children sound good and at first it does not seem to infringe on my freedom. However, how is the ban is going to be achieved? Would I need to upload a picture of government-issued ID to the company? Now I am at risk of the company getting hacked and my ID leaked.

That would be nice, as long as the method was cheaper than burning fuel to generate electricity.

And have less than 50% uptime because the sun goes down at some point?

How are they compared to power plants that use boilers and steam turbines? I read somewhere (I don't remember where) that gas turbines are less efficient but have the advantage that thy can start very quickly, - good for peaking power plants, but a boiler uses less fuel for base load.

Most of them are probably used as a backup power source, not running all the time. A gas turbine can start fast. A boiler is more efficient, but you need to run it all the time. Maybe a diesel engine of the same power is too big and heavy?

Well, Microsoft created autorun which is even more stupid, so, nothing new.

So why are countries building the more expensive coal power plants? I mean since solar, wind and batteries are the cheapest option, why countries like Chine are building the more expensive option? I don't think the leaders are unable to count money.

What are/were the good choices? They probably were not as good as you think.