This is pretty much the experience of trying to play any game from the '90s on modern hardware. It always requires a bit of tinkering and usually a patch from the modding community. Funniest one I've found is Fallout Tactics. The random encounter frequency is somehow tied to clock speed so you'll basically get hit with random encounters during map travel about once every half second.
I've been enjoying Total Annihilation since 1997. Still works fine on fairly modern hardware with Windows 11. No modifications other than some additional maps that I downloaded decades ago.
I've lived in LA ~12 years in a couple of different apartments. In all my apartment hunting I've never encountered a unit that doesn't come with a refrigerator.
My friend moved into one two months ago that had no fridge. I've seen a handful of similar units. Perhaps it's the price bracket you're looking in? These are often cheap apartments.
I lived there for 9 years, and moved nearly every year (7 times in total) and always had a fridge provided, it never crossed my mind that a place wouldn't have one.
Guessing you're referring to the long-debunked notion that Ivermectin is purely "horse medicine." A cursory search (which you apparently have never bothered to do in 5 years) reveals it's been approved by the FDA for human use since 1987 and is on the WHO's list of essential medicines.
Doses it matter as far as what I'm saying goes? Does this guy suggest people take them? Bleach? Whatever weird ideas are out there behind "the science"?
Have you ever watched Caleb Hammer's "Financial Audit?"
People in dire financial situations very often have a history of making bad decisions with money.
Personally I do not struggle with money/budgeting but the only time I will ever use something like InstaCart is if I am sick and can't leave the house.
You are privileged enough to be ABLE to make good decisions. Some people are victims of the boots theory of economics and better choices aren't actually an option.
Lifting yourself by your bootstraps only works if you can afford boots in the first place.
Pratchet said:
"The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. ... A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. ... But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socio-economic unfairness." [0]
You make dangerous assumptions about me in order to justify your preexisting view of poverty and socioeconomic mobility.
My background is very poor. Food stamps, raised by single mom, whole nine yards. For most of my 20s I existed in the very same cycle of bad financial decisions that many other poor people engage in.
My situation had approximately a 0% chance of changing until the behavior changed. That doesn't mean behavioral changes are always enough, but they are the absolute bare minimum and an excellent starting point.
People I still know in bad situations refuse to acknowledge this and refuse to critically examine their decisions. They do nothing but avoid, avoid, avoid and hope for a miraculous windfall.
You arent wrong that some people just stink at finance. Thats not what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about those who WOULD make better decisions if they were able. What is sometimes referred to as "the poverty trap."
> You make dangerous assumptions about me in order to justify your preexisting view of poverty and socioeconomic mobility
You said that you don't struggle making good financial decisions. I am claiming that you were lucky to be in a situation that allows you to make good decisions.
I believe that to be accurate, regardless of your history.
You must remember that the legitimately poor often do not have many choices to make at all. Poverty can constrain choice to the point of irrelevance. EG - Somone with a thousand dollars has more options than someone with a hundred dollars.
In your case it seems that you (now at least) have enough to be able to make choices. If you only had $50 to your name you would have far fewer options to choose from and most of those options would be bad.
Imagine a single mother working for minimum wage with a flat tire she cant afford to fix, and needing groceries. Instacart might make her problem worse, but surviving is all she can hope for sometimes.
Similary imagine an elderly widow on fixed income who is injured. Or a 17 year old who had to flee an abusive home situation, and is lucky to make rent on a weekly rental room.
For any of them it is easy to imagine they might have enough money to eat, but not enough to buy a car or even a bicycle. They will starve long before the situation improves enough to make that happen, regardless of their choices. So they make ends meet and they survive.
Its not Instacarts fault, any more than it is Dollar Generals, but it is also true that the service often worsens their long-term well-being.
Exactly. Two bits is a quarter because the US silver dollar was modeled on the Spanish Pillar Dollar, also called pieces of eight. Hence 2/8 (two bits) = 1/4.
And why wouldn't that be plausible given effectively all available cognitive data support this conclusion?
Of course I'm being facetious. I know why. No one wants to ponder that because of the stigma, so everyone puts their head in the sand and avoids the uncomfortable.
You can't police people into not being racist. People have always been racist/xenophobic to some extent and always will be. It's cultural conflict and tribal in nature.
You can police the execution of people's racist intent, and we often do. Freedom of speech and freedom of association mean racists aren't guaranteed a platform. Many countries (not the US, notably) police "hate speech" on the premise that such speech inevitably leads to hateful actions.
Arguing from human nature isn't compelling. Rape and murder are part of human nature as well, and people have always done both, yet it isn't controversial to police such behaviors. Racism is no different. We aren't mere animals entirely beholden to our base instincts, after all.
Of course I wasn't talking about or advocating jailing people for offensive memes, but I understand this is one of those subjects Hacker News can't approach in good faith and I take the downvotes and shit-eating snark in stride.
