• Liz@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      You’re gonna have to explain further before I can judge your comment.

      • Curious Canid@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        If people weren’t stupid they would not put up with having the highest medical costs in the world while achieving the lowest quality of care in the first world. Health Insurance Companies exist because too many people haven’t figured out that their purpose is to limit, or prevent, actual health care.

    • viking@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 day ago

      For profit health insurance companies.

      Even with universal healthcare, someone has to do all the admin stuff, and putting it under government control directly just screams of inefficiencies.

      • yesman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        17 hours ago

        I always assume people who assert that the government is automatically less efficient, more expensive, and poorly run compared to private industry must never have been associated with a large corporation, or lack awareness.

        Medicare, as it exists today, delivers superior care at lower cost than any private insurer. This despite the fact that Medicare covers the elderly and disabled, groups that need more care than the population at large that the private guys cover. If you think about it, Medicare is a giant subsidy to the private market by removing needy populations from their rolls.

        The scheme to include private guys in medicare “medicare advantage”, was supposed to bring down costs by bringing in the efficiency of the private market. Medicare Advantage today costs more than the Army and the Navy.

  • Etterra@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 day ago

    Warning Labels on obvious things. Like “contains dairy” on a package of butter. At some point they need to stop and let Darwin take the wheel.

    • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      22 hours ago

      Dairy is an allergen and has to be marked on packages by law in the states. There are also people who just avoid dairy, and non-dairy butter very much exists.

      • frayedpickles@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        21 hours ago

        Sounds like the problem is the vegans renaming margarine “butter” to avoid the negative connotations

        • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          12 hours ago

          I’m surprised it was allowed honestly. Thought “big butter” would lobby against it for “confusing the average citizen” or some nonsense.

          • frayedpickles@lemmy.cafe
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            6 hours ago

            Agreed, it’s not hard to make new names for things. I’m totally fine with calling soy milk that and boob juice the stuff from cows, but at least there is a qualifier. Normal English language Germanic origin behavior. So we could have boob butter and coconut butter, easy…but nooo

          • Markus Sugarhill@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 hours ago

            That’s what they managed in Europe. So we have sun milk, but don’t you dare naming it soy milk. I am do confused now, I drink my coffee with sun milk from time to time…

  • renzev@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    21
    ·
    2 days ago

    I’m gonna get downvoted for this but… gaming consoles.

    Gaming consoles made sense back in the day before home computing took off, and for a while they actually had superior hardware than computers when it came specifically to running games. But nowadays gaming consoles are just locked down user-hostile computers with a subscription service attached. The gaming equivalent of inkjet printers. It’s an industry made irrelevant by advancements in technology, propped up by misleading marketing and artificial hype that sadly many people fall for.

    • MY_ANUS_IS_BLEEDING@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      New PC graphics cards alone cost as much as entire games consoles. The top end ones cost the same as multiple PS5s. That’s why consoles exist.

    • aesthelete@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      I have a PS5 because it will play the damned games. There’s nothing in the PC realm for $400 I could buy that could come close to guaranteeing the same thing. Consoles don’t exist because people are stupid, they exist because gaming and GPU companies are cartels just like almost every other sector of the economy.

    • warlaan@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      You are underestimating the importance of standards here. On a PC you will always only get a fraction of the hardware’s power, because there’s way more stuff running at the same time, not just the game, and because the developers can’t know exactly what hardware configuration every single gamer has. On a console you can know exactly how much RAM you will have available, so you can design your content to use that amount of data and then stream it into memory that you reserve at the start. If you do that on a PC you may ask for more RAM than the PC has or you may leave RAM unused. Or you can try to optimize the game for different specs, which costs time and money, so you won’t get the same results with the same budget.

      • renzev@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        22 hours ago

        Back in the olden days when games were written in assembly and there was barely enough memory for a framebuffer it made sense to tediously optimize games to squeeze every bit of performance out of the limited hardware. Modern consoles are not like that. They have their own operating systems with schedulers, multitasking, and memory allocators, much like a desktop computer. Your claim that “way more stuff is running at the same time” is only true if the PC user deliberately decides to keep other programs running alongside their game (which can be a feature in and of itself – think recording/streaming, discord, etc.) It is true that while developing for PC you have to take account that different people will have different hardware, but that problem is solved by having a graphics settings menu. Some games can even automatically select the best graphics options that will get the most out of your hardware. What you’re describing is a non-problem.

    • TheKMAP@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      2 days ago

      There is value in static hardware so you can perform specific optimizations and target framerate. The subscriptions are 100% bullshit though.

    • MonkeMischief@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 days ago

      You’re not wrong. There definitely used to be a difference back when consoles would get way better support and PC ports were terrible.

      Sound On / Off

      – The entire options menu of a PC port in like 2006.

      But nowadays I struggle to understand the point of getting one of those big chonky tower consoles like whatever the latest Xbox or PlayStation is. (PlayStation even selling entirely new consoles for a simple graphics/RAM upgrade, smh).

      At least the Switch’s portability made sense.

    • Valmond@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      The old consoles also were just plug the game in and boot up.

      No Hassle.

      Now they sounds like Windows boxes.

      • MonkeMischief@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        I LOVED how the original X-Box had an “desktop” in it. Unfortunately that’s gone way too far anymore.

        Nowadays I find these interfaces so overly complicated and fiddly that it makes the UX of an N64 far superior.

        I pretty much went PC-only after the xbox 360 though, when ports finally started getting good. :)