Or marked as duplicate and closed but when you click the duplicate it’s a different issue.

I wanted to learn more and found this article: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/08/29/damon-baehrel-the-most-exclusive-restaurant-in-america

Sounds like the ten year wait list might be made up and who knows where he gets his meats, but the whole thing just sounds fascinating. From his website, the current price is $550 USD a head, though it’s subject to change several times per week.

He sounds like one of those guys that has a whole bunch of little projects going on at any time and over the years accumulated enough results from those to host some volume of dinner parties. And possibly exaggerates or lies about some of them (though hard to say if he treats his cooking similarly to how he treats his legend/myth).

Though I wouldn’t suggest bringing up open source software around him. Unless it’s to bitch about people doing things for free when you want to charge lots of money for it.

Yeah, but how was that food?

I just tried a fine dining restaurant for the first time this past weekend.

I was just curious after watching a bunch of cooking competitions on Netflix about how good that kind of food could be so decided to find a Michelin star restaurant and give it a try.

While the portions were small, the food was on another level. Even the “worst” of it was only that because it wasn’t amazing, but still really good.

The food was so good that when I got home and snacked that night, it was hard to enjoy any of my usual favorite snacks because it all felt so basic after that.

It was fancy in other regards, too. Like when my buddy went to the bathroom, someone came over and folded his cloth napkin rather than leave it bunched up on the table.

Plus, even though the portions were tiny and we joked about whether we’d need to stop for fast-food afterwards, by the end of the 9 or so courses, I felt completely satisfied. Even the snacking I mentioned was more due to the munchies than actual hunger.

It was expensive though. Two taster menu plus two drinks each came to about 500 CAD plus tip. And it was one of the cheaper options. There was a two Michelin star sushi place that advertised seats starting at 800 and I’m not even sure that includes any food, though I think it gets the “chef cooks what he wants” menu, which tbf would probably be way better than what I’d want anyways.

This place only needed to be booked like a month in advance, so the place you’re talking about sounds like it’s on another level itself. Though I’m curious how much that other level translates to better food.

Technically, they could have. But it wouldn’t have really been Nirvana without Cobain. It was pretty much Cobain’s cult of personality. If they had tried to continue without him, it would have been another one of those bands that starkly contrasts between before and after and the comment above would have been about never knowing Nirvana in its heyday.

Even if the continuation was good (and Dave Grohl is proof that there was enough talent for it in the rest of the band), it would have still been tainted by the lack of Cobain.

I’m not sure there’s any guarantee that it will ever be sorted, since bit flips will be random and are just as likely to put it more out of order than more in order. Plus if there’s any error correction going on, it can cancel out bit flips entirely until up to a certain threshold.

Though I’m not sure if ECC (and other methods) write the corrected value back to memory or just correct the signals going to the core, so it’s possible they could still add up over time and overcome the second objection.

If you read your history books you’ll find it was a little more than just disbanded.

If I need to use consumables in this fight, then I might run out of consumables when I built a dependence on them in a harder fight later!

I think that, due to the nature of chaos and the butterfly effect, any time travel at all would change the future. Unless it was just closing a time loop that was already present in the current past (which would mean any attempt to alter history would fail because that attempt is already a part of history), or if it’s possible to create new branches in time.

So these rules are either unnecessary because any time travel automatically causes changes that, it’s not possible to change the past from the past, or it’s not possible to go back to our past, thus nothing you do will affect our present.

Also when it gets boring, sometimes it can be fun to see what happens if you cause something unusual to happen.

Ok, dinosaurs were fun for a bit, but how do they fare against meteor strikes? Hmm, these small ones keep burning up in the atmosphere. Ok, I bet THIS one won’t burn up! It will probably shake things up quite a bit in this regio–oh shit, debris from the impact is escaping orbit, that probably means it’s going to rain hot rocks for quite some time all over the planet. Dammit, it was cool when all of the land was together in one mass but I’ve cracked that apart now and they are going to end up splitting up into smaller continents now. When’s my last save state? Dammit, it’s mid Triassic, the dinosaurs were so lame back then compared to these ones today. Guess I’ll save now. I mean, they dominate the entire planet, surely they’ll come out of this ok.

That’s pretty smart, using it for legal documents. If the accuracy is high, it might be nice to just copy paste any tos or whatever to get the highlights in plain language (which imo should be a legal requirement of contracts in general, but especially ones written by a team of bad faith lawyers intended for people they don’t expect to read it and deliberately written to discourage reading the whole thing).

And some previous sun(s), after growing into even larger red giants, created most of the matter you see around you in an act of such violence it likely destroyed any planets they hadn’t devoured.

And some of what it created still contains enough rage to make the most violent creations humanity had made–up to the point when we realized we could use that to power an even more violent creation: a brief and miniature version of our slumbering sun.

If the comments are threaded (like they are here), I don’t get why any point can be considered to derail conversations. That’s just one branch. If you don’t care to discuss that branch, just scroll past or minimize it and find another branch or start your own. They can all be discussed in parallel.

That sounds a bit sketchy… Now if you had presented that statement in comic form, I might believe it.

Yeah, this current system looks pretty fucking captured to me.

Some things look like signs that things might not be that bad, like the Google ruling is a step in the right direction. But on the other hand, IMO it wasn’t enough of a step and there was a ruling against MS 20 years ago that looked really good until it was just dropped entirely (though apparently the experience did still affect Gates when he was embarrassed about having to explain his position and realizing that most people didn’t agree with it).

Today’s billionaires don’t seem to have that humility anymore, at least not the more prominent ones. Just like the right wing politicians. And all of it enabled by the billionaire-owned media.

IMO YouTube and social media are both things that would be better as public services than for profit ventures. The things they need to do to make money either make the product shitty (holy shit @ some of the things I’ve heard from people who don’t block ads) or are outright bad for society (misinformation and all).

I like it for more obscure things where the context is needed to filter out results because the words themselves get too many hits.

But I’ve also had issues with accuracy, like asking for help with syntax for an obscure scripting language application (think like lua where a specific context added an API and wanting information about that API).

It seemed like it knew what it was talking about, but turns out none of the syntax it gave were real argument names, they couldn’t be split up into seperate lines like it claimed, and the way scope worked was off. Though it was enough to get me to a decent place where correcting everything didn’t take very long.

Edit: I also like to use it to fact check comments before I post them. You can just copy paste the comment and ask it to comment on the accuracy to add a quick but basic peer review.

Personally, I see a difference between paying for extra content vs paying to access content that is already a part of the game.

The question of whether it’s abusive is then dependent on the pricing of the base game and DLC, and how much content there is in each.

I’m even ok with games that are clearly designed to have DLC or released as multi episodes. As long as the base game is fine without the DLC, priced fairly based on the content, I don’t see a problem with it.

Like Paradox games, I’ve gotten some DLC in bundles and ignored others but still have a lot of hours in each title I’ve played. Though the way they show placeholders for the missing content is a bit iffy. But they’ve also integrated some DLC into the base game once they’ve decided that it’s become too essential (or too difficult to maintain balance through each variant possible).

But if it’s a game where you pay AAA prices for a skeleton of a game that then requires DLC to be purchased otherwise the game sucks, fuck that. Same with early access games that add DLC before the base game is finished (that isn’t just things like soundtracks or art that functions as tip jars without any in game effect). Those are just money grabs and there’s a good chance that they still suck even if you do spend the extra money.

I’m glad I’ve always looked down on people who spend money to buy shit in games. If something is only available by paying for it, anyone that I notice showing one off in game gets a “tool” label rather than “cool”.

Which is kind funny because if the game was a bit less abusive and had a way to get that item without paying, that negative reaction wouldn’t be so strong because it would be ambiguous. Did this person play the game and get rewarded with that item or did they just throw money at it and get handed it? Can’t be sure, so anyone that has it isn’t automatically a tool.

And progression MTX are even dumber. It’s like paying money so you don’t have to play the game.

Though the overall quality of the game can play a role, plus whether the items are purely cosmetic vs give in game benefits (aka P2W). If the game is amazing, having some microtransactions doesn’t bother me. Like when I pirated games, I had a threshold where if a game was better than that threshold, I’d buy a copy of the game because I wanted the devs to have money. Some MTX are like that, basically a tip jar for a great game.

But if the game isn’t great, it’s more like seeing an expectation to tip when you don’t think a tip is warranted.

Many bigots feel entitled to their bigotry but would probably be outraged if they knew some of the other things the people around them at the rallies they attend believe.