A guy at my work got promoted to manager and celebrated by tattooing the company logo onto his chest. Pretty much everyone had to hold back laughing when he showed it off.
ImplyingImplications
joined 2 years ago
For the greater good.
The industry is completely different now. The original was made in the 80s when programmers were hard to find and it took 10 of them 2 years and a million dollars to make. Then physical cartridges needed to be made and distributed that only ran on specialized hardware that also needed to be made and distributed. It selling for the equivalent of $180 could be justified since it was niche technology. There's a reason Biggie Smalls brags about owning a Super Nintendo and a Sega Genesis in a rap song. That shit was expensive even in 1994.
Today, someone can make Super Mario Bros 3 in a month after watching some game dev tutorials on YouTube, upload the .exe to Steam, and sell limitless copies to anyone who owns a computer. Selling it for $180 would be ridiculous. There's no reason tech today should cost the exact same as it did in the 80s.
Kojima putting a game about purgatory into purgatory. Bravo! He's done it again!
Yup. Trump also removed the requirement limiting the amount of water a toilet can use to flush and no manufacturers cared. They already changed their designs and factories to produce efficient models. Why would they change it all just to make stuff that's worse?
This seems like a version of the Liar paradox. Assume "this statement is false" is true. Is the statement true or false?
There are a bunch of ways to break the paradox, but they all require using a system that doesn't allow it to exist. For example, a system where truth is a percentage so a statement being 50% true is allowed.
For this question, one way to break the paradox would be to say that multiple choice answers must all be unique and repeated answers are ignored. Using that rule, this question only has the answers a) 25%, b) 60%, and c) 50%, and none of them are correct. There's a 0% chance of getting the correct answer.
Honestly, I think they could run literally anybody and they'll eventually win government. Canadians will only allow the Liberals to win so many times before deciding it's someone else's turn.
I don't think much would change. Prosecutors already weed out sympathetic jurors during selection and a non-sympathetic jury wouldn't nullify even if they knew they could.
and then I sign it "Movie Guy"
is Movie Guy your pseudonym?
no it's just a name I use instead of my real name
I love Home Movies
Sorry, I should clarify I was making fun of them.
You can't just focus on number of workers. You need to take into account the productivity of the workers as well. A farm that's entirely sown and reaped by hand could have 100 workers compared to another farm that has 5 workers with machinery, and yet the one with fewer workers could produce more food and value. It'd be wrong to say the farm with 5 workers is in a dire state just because of their low worker count.
Wikipedia has a list of countries by productivity of workers. While it's not focused on manufacturing specifically, the US has some of the most productive workers in the world and is significantly ahead of Canada. We likely have more workers per capita because each worker is less productive.
Anecdotally, I work at a Canadian manufacturing plant that's owned by an American company. The machines in our plant are from the early 2000s and there's a lot of stuff still done by hand. I've heard the US plants have the most cutting edge machines and produce 2 to 3 times as much product that we do in a day. Apparently, the only reason why the company has not gotten rid of our machines and turned the plant into a warehouse is because they pay Canadian workers comparatively less than their US workers. While the Canadian factories aren't producing nearly as much as their American ones, the cost per unit ends up being less due to lower worker wages.