This definitely plays a role, and depending on your use-case the “stability” of your software and system varies greatly. E.g Messing around with mods could leave your game in an unplayable state (to the point it just wouldn’t launch properly), whilst today you just download/install them from Steam workshop with 1-click.
They do it because they are taught that way and rarely question the prevailing doctrine. There are researchers who eventually understand that animal testing rarely lead to results.
Highly recommend reading “animal liberation” if you want to learn more about it.
Animal models do not translate well to humans, something that’s been known for decades. Researchers continue down this path not because it makes sense but because “it’s always been done this way”.
This research has little real value for human medicine. If anything, animal testing might have set back human healthcare. (People have literally died by taking medicine that worked fine on animals yet severely harmed humans).
A bigger amount of people is alive, because animal test discarded a lot of bad ideas before they were tested in humans.
There was a recent post about using bacteria to kill cancer. They selected 50 strains of bacteria. With in vitro test they reduced thenumber to 9. Withmice test they reduced the number to 1. I think they are testing only that bacteria in other animals, because it may still be a bad idea (or hopefuly a brilant one).
This assumes that what is harmful to animals is harmful to humans. If you determine whether chocolate or strawberries are edible by their effects on dogs, none of us would be eating those :)
This is _sometimes_ true, but we will also miss opportunities by not trusting a substance that would be fine for humans but not for mice.
There are cases of substance that are fine for animals and bad for humans. The fists trials use very small groups and thy have rules like waiting 15 minutes or 1 hour between subjects. There was a very bad disaster a few years ago where the experimenter got lazy and injected everyone almost at the same time and two or tree died and a few had severe health problems.
> miss opportunities
It's totally possible, but if it already killed 50/50 rats, 15/15 dogs and 5/5 monkeys, and they offer me to be the fist human subject, I'd run away faster than Forest Gump.
I imagine there are exceptions. For example, we understand very well why ivermectine kills a lot of invertebrates but not (most) vertebrates and is a very good horse and human dewormer. There may be something that kills everything except humans, and we may understand why theoretically, but I'd not like to be the first to try it.
If you needed a mini tablet you would cause there's practically zero competition
I bought the new 8 inch Alexa tablet the other day, and the price was decent but it's a piece of shit. I only wanted it for putting on a video in bed while I fall asleep but it can't even do that because when you drop the brightness to minimum, the display randomly turns off (not actually locking the screen, it's still running the app and active, you can touch stuff you can't see, but the pixels are turned off)
I've seen some TVs do that, turn off the screen when it gets dark (not talking OLED). Often takes too long and is a nuisance. There's a similar awful gimmick with speakers turning off when quiet, but it results in sound cutting out because it's too slow. I've seen some monitors that even try to do this when using headphones through them.
I hadn't since CmdrTaco left. But I've been going to it more and more in the last few months. I don't read the comments - but I do like the headline curation.
Blizzard has not been independent since 1994, but people on the internet love picking some arbitrary point in time when "Blizzard died" when in reality the timeline and quality of their releases has almost zero correlation with who they were owned by at the time.
I like Jason Schreier's take that the end of Blizzard began as soon as WoW blew up in popularity.
"Imagine a Blizzard that never made or never found the success they did with WoW and continued on the path of boxed releases every couple years."
I did find myself rather salty back then that it felt like Blizzard abandoned anything outside of WoW until 2010. WoW wasn't something I ever grew an interest in, yet I played an absurd amount of SC and WC3. Then SC2 was a huge miss for me, as well as every game after it.
Yes, of course there's the financial performance of a studio and then the identity of a studio that people get attached to.
I didn't get into Blizzard games because they were a financial powerhouse, I got into them because they were fun as hell and the identity of Blizzard at the time gave me faith that their next release would be just as fun. That faith started deteriorating around 2005/6 for me, and was gone within a month or so of SC2 releasing. The identity of Blizzard of the 90s and early 2000s that I fell in love with was gone by 2010.
I can go into more detail about the shortcomings of all of the games from 2010 on (IMO, obviously), but the overall point is that they are fundamentally different than their older games and might as well have been from a different studio.
Blizzard effectively got bought out when they merged with Activision. It wasn't technically a buyout, but Blizzard quality was never the same after that.
Blizzard has not been independent since 1994, but people on the internet love picking some arbitrary point in time when "Blizzard died" when in reality the timeline and quality of their releases has almost zero correlation with who they were owned by at the time.
WoW Forever seems like they're at least attempting to try for the brass ring again. But it has such a "been there, done that" feel that I suspect its more to capture revenue from a new generation.
> But it has such a "been there, done that" feel that I suspect its more to capture revenue from a new generation.
The "been there, done that" vibe is their pitch to the older generation who no longer cares as much about technically or ladder climbing and just wants something to do when it's cold outside
+1. I phased out meat over almost like 6 months before being completely vegetarian. It made the transition much easier when I did this about 12 years ago.
I eliminated types of meat (e.g no more chicken, then no more beef, etc). Slowly adapting my diet over time.
Sadly that is not entirely true. Many farms will make such claims.. until secret “inspections” happen and you realize they are skirting around the rules.
In theory yes it’s better, in practice, not always.
reply