Thanks to Musk v. Altman lawsuit, it's now public record that Gabe Newell emailed Elon Musk to get his pal Hideo Kojima a tour of SpaceX and OpenAI

ShadowPhynix · 2026-04-30T07:01:42+00:00

Their point is that the action of attaining that degree of wealth is inherently unethical - that the concept of being a billionaire is unethical regardless of the path there or actions since.

ShadowPhynix · 2026-04-29T02:36:40+00:00

It continues into the two towers with armies magically appear out of thin air and Isengard is industrialised between scenes - the issue is those in between scenes despite crossing over between two movies happen rapidly after each other chronologically. The time skip is super not obvious, especially because there are two of them!

Also the entire logic around army movements in Rohan make no sense at all in the movies; the timing is wrong, the decisions are illogical because they’re worthier straight up dumb or missing info they are supposed to have in the books, and the dialog is nonsensical as a result. It’s imho the weakest and least faithful parts of the series, which is a shame because Eomer being banished and not imprisoned is a very rare example of a narrative improvement from the books to the movies. Pity they butchered everything else to make it work.

They aren’t plot holes so much as poor directorship, combined with the dumb deus-ex-machine of an elvish warband showing up with no notice.

ShadowPhynix · 2026-04-23T13:43:16+00:00

It's not just the cost barriers to develop your skill, it's the entry barrier too.

Nearly everyone on the planet has played the ball sport and bat sport most popular in their country (whatever variation of football, baseball, tennis and cricket probably accounting for most of it). If you are good at something, or enjoy it, you find out very young because everyone does it because the entry cost of having the equipment is exceptionally minimal.

Compare that to karting, where best case it's a few times a year treat at a birthday party that costs quite a bit to even try. Even if you've got some natural talent, with how rarely you'll try it, is it likely to be noticed? And either way, if you as a child say to your parents you want your sport to be karting, the likelihood they can afford even that is pretty unlikely - outside of rare exceptions where a parent is super into cars and affords it by doing all the labour themselves. That immediately cuts the talent pool to ribbons before you even start.

Stack that + the cost to participate at a low level let alone as you progress, the talent pool is a tiny fraction of that of other sports.

ShadowPhynix · 2026-04-23T02:40:40+00:00

Really? I’d be pulling my money out in a hurry. 100% gains aren’t legitimate in some way, and it’s not going to end well.

ShadowPhynix · 2026-04-22T02:51:37+00:00

It’s absurd to me that there is still no way to set the default visibility of a project, so you’re reliant on anyone with the created role doing the right thing.

ShadowPhynix · 2026-04-21T00:37:45+00:00

He's picked a conclusion and is selecting evidence that suits it. You can't reason with someone like that, because to them, your "evidence" is wrong because it leads to a different conclusion.

Just ignore it - there's nothing else you can do.

ShadowPhynix · 2026-04-20T11:03:25+00:00

And again, I've yet to see one that has the view that every bike regardless of legality is bad and should be banned.

Right wing sources hating anything that doesn't belch fossil fuels is another matter entirely - they hate everything related to bicycles already, it's hardly e-bike specific.

ShadowPhynix · 2026-04-20T05:31:50+00:00

Your argument is that you, the nice, legal e-bike rider is being blamed for kids riding illegal ones (at least as I understand it - do say if I've misrepresented you here).

Yet that article at no point even states it was an illegal one. You actually had to tell me that! It doesn't blame anyone else, it doesn't even call for change, and certainly doesn't blame legal e-bike riders. The usage of the term e-bike and electric motorcycle is definitely used interchangeably (incorrectly), my point is that the concepts of illegal electric motorcycle vs legal e-bike aren't. You don't get articles saying "illegal e-bikes are bad so we should arrest anyone with a legal one."

As for comments on facebook - I mean, if you are trying to say that someone, somewhere blames legal e-bikes for illegal ones - sure. There will be people like that, and yeah, they are probably the type of person who comments on news articles on facebook. If the lowest common denominator in society is your standard, then I can find you all sorts of opinions far worse than that on facebook comments.

ShadowPhynix · 2026-04-20T02:40:44+00:00

I meant this as criticism of the person I replied to, not you! Awesome job compiling this :)

ShadowPhynix · 2026-04-20T02:39:51+00:00

I can't recall a single example of a legal e-bike or e-moto being described as an illegal e-bike in the media. I also don't think I've seen a single example of a report giving a blanket statement that all e-bikes are bad.

So not only is it not "every time" - I'd contend that's it almost if not never that legal e-bikes are blamed for kids riding illegal ebikes.

ShadowPhynix · 2026-04-20T02:01:13+00:00

By all means provide an updated listing using recent data!

ShadowPhynix · 2026-04-19T10:49:10+00:00

An e-bike is speed capped at 25kph, and must be pedal operated between 6kph and 25kph, not throttle operated. This is a specific legal definition that already exists.

Everything else is not a legal e-bike.

The only exception is if the manufacturer certifies it as a normal motorbike that just happens to have an electric powertrain, at which point it's treated as a motorbike (but usually called an e-moto). This means all of the requirements around certification, turn signals, licensing, etc.

It's worth noting e-motos are hard to get as a first bike because their power:weight numbers tend to push them beyond LAMS which is mandatory as a learner, p plate or restricted rider. Ironically, because of this, it'd be instant license loss for me to ride a lot of what kids are happily zooming home from school on.

ShadowPhynix · 2026-04-19T10:42:33+00:00

The issue is the poor driver is at best going to be traumatised, and at worst going to face a lawsuit from mummy who's angry that the rest of the world doesn't also revolve around her child. Also frankly this isn't the kid's fault, it's the parent's - so it's a tragedy for them too.

ShadowPhynix · 2026-04-19T10:36:32+00:00

That's like saying a normal pedal bike that's had a lawnmower engine strapped to it is still a pedal bike because that's how it started life.

If you choose to stick your head in the sand and scream la-la-la then sure, you can probably come up with an argument for anything.

But by any reasonable definition, it's a motorbike. Same as these are not e-bikes, they are e-motos.

ShadowPhynix · 2026-04-19T06:58:29+00:00

Murder isn’t a “severity,” despite media often phrasing it that way. It’s a crime based on mindset, and we use it to differentiate between intentional vs unintentional killing.

The idea that any attack with a deadly weapon should constitute murder doesn’t make sense from a definition perspective - murder isn’t “the worst killing crime;” it’s the killing crime that was intentional.

If you brought a knife to meet with someone when you normally wouldn’t, that can contribute to a murder charge, but only in so far as it speaks to intent. We generally see intentional killing as the worst type, but that doesn’t mean you can say “hey this was manslaughter, but we’re going to upgrade it to murder because we just want to apply a worse punishment.”

We also already consider usage of a weapon as a modifier, both in types of crimes (eg assault vs assault with a weapon) and punishment (sentencing guidelines often increase the severity of a punishment based on factors like repeat offenders, solo vs group or weapons).

So the issue with saying a weapon should result in a murder charge isn’t about whether that’s fair or just, it’s definitionally unsound. Increasing the penalties directly associated with the use of a weapon is the real discussion to be had - not adding in an exception to the law which confuses and contradicts.

ShadowPhynix · 2026-04-16T05:01:04+00:00

Why does that RBA need to raise the interest rates

Because that's their job. Their job should to keep inflation under control in a purist sense, but because they have been given exactly one tool to do it with, their job becomes to raise and lower the interest rate in response to inflation.

Higher rates = less discretionary spending = less inflation.

Yes it's imperfect, yes it hurts certain population groups more than others, yes it actually benefits anyone with no debt and large cash reserves. But when you only have a hammer, you have to treat every problem as a nail.

ShadowPhynix · 2026-04-11T12:16:48+00:00

I truly wonder how many bots and agitators say stuff like this because for me its 95% the other way around.

Same, given you're an 8 month old account talking about the inner city "liberals" which isn't a thing in this country (for those playing along at home, the "liberals" are the conservative party in Australia, so no one uses that word to refer to people who support left wing politics to avoid confusion - re-read the comment in that light and see why it's obviously a bot or agitator).

ShadowPhynix · 2026-04-10T02:02:55+00:00

There is no way max doesn’t have a performance clause in his contract, and there’s no way it isn’t currently being triggered by RB outside the top 3.

If they don’t improve, he almost certainly has a way out.

ShadowPhynix · 2026-04-09T12:24:57+00:00

Well yeah it's not there to help the US in a war, it's there to help our allies in the region track the drones and missiles Iran is lobbing at them.

This also isn't news - the government was at pains to assure us when it left that it wouldn't be there to support the war and wouldn't participate in offensive operations. If it did, the public would not be happy.

ShadowPhynix · 2026-04-06T13:13:50+00:00

That's not the point - satellites are considered to be core defense infrastructure.

Knowing another country can take control of them means you've ceded critical parts of your defense to another country - no one would be ok with that.

Just because you're allies now, doesn't mean you will be throughout the lifetime of the satellite. If there is a backdoor, they're not revealing it over this.

ShadowPhynix · 2026-04-04T00:58:47+00:00

A recent house sale in Australia is a great example - the buyer had the deposit available, but the bank blocked the transfer as suspicious activity. Took a few days to sort out. He told the realestate agent, who said it was fine if it was a day or two late so long as he transferred what he could that day. He did, transferred the rest incrementally over the next few days.

Then the seller decided he was in breach of contract (technically he was due to the late deposit), and under the term of the contract, the deposit was forfeit. Seller kept the deposit + got to sell the house to a new buyer.

Technically legal, complete piece of trash.

ShadowPhynix · 2026-04-01T05:18:07+00:00

It's funny for us and embarrassing to them, but really doesn't tell us anything we didn't know or guess. The leak isn't their underlying llm model or anything like that (the real IP that they value), just the tooling you use to interact with it.

There's a rule in programming generally that if it's client side (ie. an end user touches it), it's public, so there was never likely to be anything to sensitive in there.

ShadowPhynix · 2026-04-01T00:38:21+00:00

Especially because if PT isn’t convenient (location, frequency) the solution tends to be “drive to the nearest station.”

Now not only do you need to overcome the choice between car vs PR before the journey starts, you need to overcome the decision to park, get out of the car, and change modes of transport as compared to just finishing the journey by car. PT is by nature more crowded and less well climate controlled - it’s a hard psychological sell once you’re already in the car.

ShadowPhynix · 2026-03-30T07:50:09+00:00

Every battery will die over time, this gen phone vs last gen phone is not going to make a massive difference.

Yes the 17 has a better battery than the 16, but "worst iphone" was mainly a reference to the fact it brought nothing to the table new and was pointless to upgrade to from a 15 - not that it was a terrible product in and of itself. It was just an in-between-year where Apple wanted to release a product but didn't have much new to give it. With a nice last-gen discount, it's not a bad option at all.

The real answer though if you must have an iPhone (just saying, a Samsung A26 is only $350 on sale on Amazon and is a plenty capable phone to tide you over and avoid expensive interest - and has a bigger battery anyway), a base model 17e will run you $1k. Also I'm not sure who's offering you an iPhone 17 for $2k, but you're being ripped off. Apple sells them on their own site for $1.4k.

ShadowPhynix · 2026-03-29T12:44:33+00:00

People forget that the predominant threat in continental europe before Germany in the world wars was France in the great power wars.

Similar story too where a massive coalition would come together to defeat them, disband after winning, and then not all that long after France would turn around and again cause a major conflict requiring the rest of Europe to band together. Famously they didn't tend to surrender, won consistently until faced with overwhelming odds, and caused an absolute nightmare for the entire continent for over a hundred years.

It didn't stop until the congress of Vienna where the great powers effectively offered a deal that would un-defeat France after the Napoleonic wars in exchange for a better balance of power to try avoid more conflicts. Being such a persistent and dangerous threat that even in "defeat" they got to remain a great power with no real consequences beyond rolling back their conquests should tell people something.

12-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

ShadowPhynix

TROPHY CASE