Gabe is literally practising Noblesse Oblige, which is really funny but really shows that our billionare society is really just a reduction to old aristocracy. He's just the good Duke, whereas most Dukes are horrible, horrible people.
Noblesse oblige exists because of a moral economy. You can be a horrible Duke, because there's no real reward for being the good one.
This is not that - Steam has to compete on the free market, there is a reward for making the product everyone else refuses to make. In a post-Deck world, it's hard to believe that moral obligation plays a bigger role than the overall hatred of Windows for seamless gaming experiences.
"A complement is a product that you usually buy together with another product. Gas and cars are complements. Computer hardware is a classic complement of computer operating systems. And babysitters are a complement of dinner at fine restaurants."
Technically it doesn't add security, but I think the recommendation for SSO stems from the reality that peoples behavior gets worse if they have to maintain more accounts. And if they use the same password, the least secure system affects the others in a classical setup.
It was, repeatedly. It's a very important historical document that defined negative rights (congress shall pass no law) and inspired most modern constitutions.
The problem is the US never bothered to address it's technical debt, so it's patch on patch on patch. An updated constitution would probably cut through a lot of the bullshit in American politics, e.g. the interstate commerce clause being the entire justification for the federal government lol.
In parliamentary systems we see fractures and reformation all the time, including in the current political climate in the UK.
Duverger's Law is only really parroted by Americans, who's ballot access and districting is determined by a coalition of two political parties instead of an constitutionally defined apolitical government institution. Don't forget to vote Green or Libertarian! Oh wait, you can't because the dems and repubs struck them from the ballot :(
Hilarious that redditors think calling a call center will do anything, they've clearly never worked at one. Call center employees are nothing to Visa/Mastercard executives. And those same executives are nothing to the billionaire pushing this, he's going straight through the board.
People at the bottom really don't know how power works.
Execs do care when the call center is so swamped with dealing with external BS that more common complaint calls can't get through, costs per customer skyrocket, and customer support satisfaction nosedives.
Don't think of it as some complaint calls. Think of it more like a mass protest. Mayors don't care if 5 people jaywalk. They start caring a whole lot when entire streets are blocked and their residents are demanding a response. Except in the call center case, callers are following the exact documented policy of contacting their bank to complain about bad service. What's Visa going to do, crack down on callers? That would be even worse for customer satisfaction and would probably get the board involved.
But a reminder: if you call, be unfailingly polite to the support person. Keep them on the phone as long as possible, but be kind to them. They don't set the policy. This isn't their fault. Visa and Mastercard should be dealing with the pain, not the regular employee who gets paid to help customers with their credit card issues.
The claim is that 1000 calls caused Visa/Mastercard to react. This works in reverse too.
And yeah, the call center isn't the point, the loss of productivity (and thus, money) dealing with this issue will make them react. The call centers don't care, but the people up top will see the impact.
So you didn't outrun a bad diet. You counted calories and matched your diet to your exercise (or vice versa) to get the weight outcome you wanted.
I think some here are narrowly interpreting "bad diet" to mean "lots of junk food". While yes, that's not a great diet, what's really meant is a diet where calorie intake regularly exceeds expenditure, regardless of what you're eating.
Even if you eat only the healthiest of foods, if your intake is too much for what you're burning, that's still a "bad diet".
I don't think that's a reasonable way to define the phrase. If "bad diet" is defined in terms of how much exercise you do, then "you can't outrun a bad diet" is a tautology.
