Comparing the US to the EU is a bit disingenuous. The US is a single country (though, that's debatable) made up of 50 states, whereas the EU is a political and economic union made of 27 mostly autonomous member nations. If you compared the US to some of the EU's top economies, this list would probably look very different. And that's really the key here, that these are all averages. Some Americans are much, much, much richer than, well, everyone, and their wealth figures skew the average. Similarly, some US states are much richer than others. Obviously, that's true of the EU as well, but without further details we can't properly put these numbers into context.

Good. Obviously it won't pass, but we have to start somewhere.

"Simpson, how would you like to escort 500 Big Macs to Marlon Brando's island?"

US State Department Spokesperson Matthew Miller later stated the US believes this step is "not productive at all" due to the UN's role in the region.

Wow, we are really taking a firm stance here. Israel better be careful or we might become slightly miffed, or maybe even peeved.

If they're such committed zionists, why are they here and not in Israel?

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that public utilities should be funded from taxes instead of charging for service? I don't think having tax payers pay public utilities to overproduce electricity is going to fix the problem, especially since no amount of tax dollar funding can allow utilities to produce solar electricity when the sun isn't shining.

Public utilities still need to cover their expenses, and they're not going to be able to do that if they're charging negative rates in the middle of the day and have no electricity to sell once the sun goes down.

Isn't peak consumption around middle of the day for most countries?

I can't speak to other countries, but in the US peak electricity demand generally occurs in the early evening.

Mfw electricity being cheap to generate is not economical

Cheap electricity is great for consumers, but not necessarily for producers. Some people might say, "well, screw producers," but even if you take profit out of the equation, electric utilities need to be able to at least cover their expenses, and you can't do that if the amount of electricity you're generating relative to the demand is so high the price actually goes negative (meaning the utility is actually paying the consumer). Again, that's good for consumers, but I'm sure you can see how that's not a sustainable business model. And, like I mentioned before, it would be one thing if utilities could make up for this by selling for a higher price during peak, but by that point the sun is either setting or already set, depending on the time of year, so there's just no solar electricity to sell, at any price.

That's not what they were saying, they were saying that it's not economical to have an abundance of electricity when people need it the least, and little or no electricity when people need it the most. It would be one thing if utilities could sell solar electricity at peak demand hours for a higher price, to make up the difference, but that's just when solar generation is slowly down significantly or stopped entirely.

And, yes, I know that battery storage could theoretically solve this, but battery technology is not currently capable of providing electricity for the entirety of the time we need it. New technologies are being developed right now with the goal of achieving long term grid storage, but they are still in the R&D phase. I'm confident a suitable storage technology, or multiple technologies, will eventually come to market, but it's going to take a while.

Regardless, it is likely we will always need some kind of on-demand power generation to supplement renewables and maintain grid stability, and I think nuclear is the best option.

But we shouldn't act like the problem is that utilities are just greedy. Many utilities aren't even for-profit companies, as many are either not-for-profit cooperatives or public entities. Sure, there are also many for-profit power utilities as well, maybe even some with connections to the fossil fuel industry, but generally power utilities are not some great villain.

I don't think innocent people deserve to die just because they happen to not live in a liberal democracy. It's not like it's their choice, anyway, but even people who support their country's regime don't deserve to be killed for it.

Nintendo doesn't want you to play their games if you're not willing to follow their rules. Ok, that's their prerogative, but that means I will not be playing their games...at least not their new ones.

I prefer playing on my Steam Deck these days, and I really don't want to buy another handheld just to play Nintendo first party titles. I'm going to play some of my favorite classic Nintendo titles on my Deck using emulators and just not play the new stuff. I'm sure they're great games, but so what? There are lots of great games. I've got a huge backlog of great games already in my Steam library, and 20 more on my wishlist. If Nintendo some day decides to make their titles available for Steam Deck or PC, I'd consider buying them, but since that's extremely unlikely to happen, I think I'm just done with Nintendo.

Who gives a shit.

Nintendo has burned through all the good will they developed with me when I was a kid in the 80s and 90s. I doubt I'll ever buy another Nintendo product again. Not that it matters to Nintendo, though. I'm many years removed from their target demographic. They make products for young people and that ain't me. I'm sure those younger Nintendo fans will keep supporting the company, but, as for me, I've got the classic Nintendo games I want and I'll keep playing them on whatever device I want. If Nintendo doesn't like that, they can kiss my whole ass.

I like our chances to make another run IF we can clean up some things and get healthy.

George Kittle said, "flag this, refs."

These refs are fucking ridiculous!

That's not holding.

That's it, I'm getting a Fred Warner jersey.

Ideas about how men are expected to live and behave will always differ from culture to culture, but even within a given culture there are different expectations, based on things like class, for instance. In fact, I would say that's the big difference between the Republicans and the Democrats, at least in this instance. Walz is a working class man, Vance is firmly a member of the upper class. Given this, it shouldn't be surprising that Walz seems more in touch with the "average American," where Vance seems very, well, out of touch.

So why then do so many working class men identify more with Vance? It's complicated, but it generally all comes down to hierarchy. Working class Americans have been told their whole lives that workers are lower in the social hierarchy, especially those who work more physical jobs and make less than what is necessary to be considered at least upper middle class. By this metric, Walz is a "loser" while Vance is a "winner." Hierarchy is very important to many men and few of them want to be associated with "losers." It doesn't matter so much that Trump and Vance are weird and out of touch, what matters is they are rich, and in this country your place in the social hierarchy is largely determined by your wealth and income.

Makes sense. Steam OS is Arch based, so Valve has a vested interest in it. Especially now that the Steam Deck is an unmitigated success.