What grinds my gears

It seems like Sony Entertainment just don't learn from their past mistakes, do they? In the recent past they spent hundreds of millions of dollars (a commonly-cited figure is 400 million) and 8 years of development time on the biggest flop of the entire history of video games that has ever existed. In other words, Concord: Hundreds of millions of dollars spent, 8 years of development time, the game completely shut down in less than 2 weeks from publication and all purchases (a few tens of thousands of copies) refunded. Literally zero revenue, no exaggeration. As mentioned in that blog post, one would think that a budget of several hundreds of millions of dollars would mean the game was an absolutely massive open world experience with an absolutely enormous amount of assets and content, an absolutely massive amount of NPCs with scripted lines, a massive amount of quests and missions and so on and so forth. Nope. In actual reality it was just a so-called "hero shooter" wit...

I have written before about some of the most insane laws in the United States: American cops can cause literally millions of dollars in private property damage , and neither them, the city, or any part of the government has to compensate a single penny. It's 100% the person's loss. His property is just destroyed by the cops, and there's absolutely no recourse for the owner. Nothing. It's his loss, 100%. But what if you are involved in a car accident with a police car , and it was 100% caused by the cops and you are 100% innocent of anything, and courts fully judge it as such? Do you at least then get some kind of compensation for the damages and loss of property? Nope. You will not get a single penny. Even your insurance company will not give you a single penny because it was a police car (because of some insane loopholes in their own rules). It's, once again, 100% your loss, and you have no recourse. If you buy a plot of land 100% legally and by the book, and plan ...

Matt Walsh is an ultra-conservative American Christian who has a very big YouTube channel and overall media presence, and who has even produced several quite successful movies about the invasion of modern far-leftism and its excesses. He often makes very good points and is very rational reasonable. "Often" being the most important word there, rather than "always". Because sometimes his rationality and reason is shoved aside by his ultra-conservative ultra-American-Christian activism and propaganda. Don't get me wrong: He is perfectly entitled to his Christian beliefs, and in fact a lot of things he believes in, and believes should be the norm, are much better than most alternatives (including a particular other religion). However, the problems start when he starts engaging in propaganda and outright historic revisionism in order to promote his brand of Christianity and his religious ideals. For example, he is one of those American conservatives who strongly beli...

Last year I wrote about how I have become utterly tired of "prank" videos . Not just the mean and stupid ones, but  all  of them. Including those shown in prime time television (eg. "Candid Camera", "Just For Laughs Gags" and so on.) There's a somewhat similar thing I have also gotten completely tired of in later years, and that's all the "thinking outside the box" type problems. In other words, puzzles, problems, riddles and so on, where the solution requires something that's surprising and wasn't apparent from the setup of the problem in question. You know, the kind of problem where the solution involves a sentiment like "nobody said the lines you draw can't go outside the grid" and the myriads of other similar problems. And that sentiment reveals the very reason why I'm so tired of them: They are intentionally designed to be deceptive. For all intents and purposes they lie by omission: The problem is always se...

In the United States, trial by jury, having a jury of regular fellow citizens in criminal cases, is considered one of the most fundamental core aspects of a free constitutional democratic society with a fair justice system. One of the core ideas with it is that justice is not in the hands of a minority elite, ie. those who are in power, but in the hands of the people. It reduces and avoids tyranny and oligarchies, where the elite ruling class judges and sentences citizens. Not all countries have implemented the concept of trial-by-jury of citizens. Instead, in many countries criminal trials are judged by a panel of judges (and, sometimes, other kinds of legal experts). In other words, a panel of highly educated experienced licensed experts with advanced law degrees and years of experience. While trial-by-jury might sound like a good and fair idea on paper, the recent Lindsay Clancy trial has really showed its main problems and drawbacks. Two of the most prominent problems with regular ...

Consider this description of Lysenkoism in Wikipedia: "Lysenkoism was a pseudoscientific political campaign led by the Soviet biologist Trofim Lysenko against genetics and science-based agriculture in the mid-20th century, rejecting natural selection in favour of a form of Lamarckism, as well as expanding upon the techniques of vernalization and grafting." "More than 3,000 mainstream biologists were dismissed or imprisoned, and numerous scientists were executed in the Soviet campaign to suppress scientific opponents. The president of the Soviet Agriculture Academy, Nikolai Vavilov, who had been Lysenko's mentor, but later denounced him, was sent to prison and died there, while Soviet genetics research was effectively destroyed. Research and teaching in the fields of neurophysiology, cell biology, and many other biological disciplines were harmed or banned." Now, does that remind you of anything happening in the modern world? Incidentally, even related to biology...

I once again stumbles across one of those neo-socialist videos where the author compared the net worth of billionaire CEOs with the salaries of entry-level workers who had just been hired into one of the companies of said CEO. About how the CEO is worth such-and-such amount of billions of dollars, while the entry-level worker gets a salary of such-and-such amount of dollars per hour. In this particular video the author was advocating for a "wealth tax". There were several things wrong with that video. The fact that a "wealth tax" of billionaires would do jack squat to the salaries of entry-level workers was just the least of those. (The only thing that a "wealth tax" would do is to increase governmental tax revenue by a small fraction of a percent, all of which would just be wasted on the same things they are wasting that tax money anyway. The entry-level workers would see little to no benefit from it at all.) One of the major problems in the video, someth...