zalack

The craziest part of that to me is that they could have just charged the users directly without putting the onus for payment on the app developers.

You want your account to be able to use the data API? You have to subscribe to Reddit+. One you do that account can use any Oauth App it wants to access the site.

The fact that they put something as complicated as payment flow on third party developers is just obscene.

Not a paradox. Tolerance is a peace treaty, not a moral precept.

We don't call it a "diplomacy paradox" when a country responds to getting invaded by killing the invaders.

I think the best solution would be to have an API affordances for it. Have some sort of historical boolean field that lets you import the content but keeps it from showing up in feeds.

That's way you can move your community's history over to a new home without drowning out other content

Oooh. I like that better

I personally like Rexxitors

Personally I down voted him because even though I also prefer short, tightly focused experiences, there's room in the world for all types of games. Just don't play the ones that don't appeal to you.

I've never really modded any of Bethesda's games. I play them through once or twice and never feel it lacking.

What the mood support does is give the game legs for decades, and thousands of hours of playtime. Most games that aren't engineering / creative games like Minecraft, no matter how fun, are going to get stale after 100 hours.

Having good mod support means you can keep tweaking the experience to keep it fresh.

A lot (all) nuclear accidents also occurred with older reactor designs.

Traditional nuclear reactors were designed in such a way that they required management to keep the reaction from running away. The reaction itself was self-sustaining and therefore the had to be actively moderated to stay inside safe conditions. If something broke, or was mis-managed, the reaction had a chance of continuing to grow out of control. That's called a melt-down.

As an imperfect analogy, older reactors were water towers. The machinery is keeping the water in an unstable state, and a failure means it comes crashing down to earth

Newer reactrs are designed so they they require active management to keep the reaction going. The reaction isn't self-sustaining, and requires outside power to maintain. If something breaks or is mismanaged, the reaction stops and the whole thing shuts down. That means they can't melt down.

As an imperfect analogy, newer reactors are water pumps. If power is interrupted nothing breaks catastrophically, water just stops moving.

Maybe it depends on the metal, but I have titanium artificial disks in the base of my back that are safe to put through an MRI.

Theory in science generally means something much more stringent than it does in vernacular. From Wikipedia:

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be (or a fortiori, that has been) repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.

A scientific theory differs from a scientific fact or scientific law in that a theory explains "why" or "how": a fact is a simple, basic observation, whereas a law is a statement (often a mathematical equation) about a relationship between facts and/or other laws.

So when something is being put forward as "A Scientific Theory" it is meant to be taken as the best possible explanation we can make of why the universe is the way it is, backed by exhaustive tests using the best methods currently available to us.

In science, when something is just a theory in the way you mean, it's called a hypothesis.

I definitely reread my favorite series. The thing about re-reading a book is that you don't actually ever get the full experience the first time around. Well-written books are full of foreshadowing, not just of plot points, but themes. The first time you read a book, you don't really know what it's about yet, what the book will eventually decide is it's overall thesis, and where the characters' journeys will take them. Critical moments that shift the trajectory of a story may happen quietly, only important in retrospect.

When you read a book a second or a third time you get to do so with all of the context of where the story is going, and it lets you catch so much more.

This example is from television, but The Good Place is my favorite show, and (spoilers) one of its central theses ends up being the modern world makes unethical choices unavoidable.

Very early on in the show we get a scene of Eleanor making fun of her boyfriend when he says they should find a new coffee shop, after the owner of their current one is outed as a sexist pig. She lists a bunch of other products they buy like smartphones and sports games and says that bad stuff is unavoidable so why bother?

At that point in the show, the scene is just a way to show you what a dirt bag Eleanor was on earth. But on a seconds viewing, with foresight, you can clock it laying early groundwork for one of the main arguments that the show wants to make.

This is one of the reasons I don't mind getting spoiled on stuff, and in some cases will spoil myself on purpose. When you know how the story ends, you get to pick up all the little things it does to get there, without reading or watching it twice. I went to film school and am a bit of a story nerd so for me that's the most enjoyable part of watching someone else tell their story.

Maybe. No matter who loses this is probably going to end up being a huge boon for Ukraine.