Yes, when combined with the switch 1

I keep retyping what I want to say, but I think my feelings come down to:

1. There are 150 million switch 1’s in the wild, that’s going to continue to be a massive pull for developers when porting new games.
2. Many families may already have the switch 1, are the exclusives enough of a pull to encourage those people to upgrade?

I do think the switch 2 will do just fine, but I also think there are a lot of people who loved their switch 1 who might look at the games they played, and look at upgrading to a steamdeck instead of the switch 2.

I only asked my question because the original commentor was suggesting that US prices were going to go up because Canada was adding export tarrifs.

I assume that because they deleted their comment they realized that wasn’t true.

Which products is Canada putting an export tarrif on? This is news to me.

What is aegis in this case? (It’s way too generic to successfully search for)

Isn’t that a photo a perfect example of what happens when we let private institutions provide public services (which is what you’re suggesting be done instead).

Are you trying to say that things would be better if elementary and High school also had to be paid for directly instead of being publicly funded?

Do you have an example that uses real income? All those percentage are relative to something, and that something is the most important part.

What province are we talking about and what salary are we talking about.

To be honest though, this sounds like some pie in the sky libertarian point of view where they are suggesting multiple things that are repeatedly proved false. Some of which include:

• trickle down economics, the idea that business will pass on additional profits to employees.
• business will regulate themselves and ensure consumer safety.
• business will happily provide the same infrastructure and services that we current fund through taxes for free or cheaper than it’s costs us right now to provide those services.

Which at that point I think you’re argument is correct, if we stopped spending effectively around 40% of our income (thats on the high-end) on funding public services, then over 75% of our income would need to go towards paying to get those same services back.

I would love to see the math behind that. Typically it’s a case where someone is effectively paying 25% of their income to taxes, but because they are too lazy to actually understand how taxes work they are easily convinced it’s well over 50%

Like I thought, you’re misunderstanding what you’re reading.

Yes current recycling processes can lose 4% of the material. But that’s not because they aren’t recoverable, that’s because it’s not currently financially feasible to recover it all.

And that’s just the recycling part. For someone suggesting that I should read better you sure aren’t great at reading either. So I’ll ask it again.

What part of the metal atoms degrade as part of them being used in batteries?

Yes. Things can be infinitely recyclable. But since you’re such an expert. Tell me, what part of a lithium atom degrades during its life as a battery? I’m not expecting a good answer from you though since you think that burning a compound (to release the energy in its bonds) is then recyclable.

Once. They are pulled from the ground once. After which they are essentially infinitely recyclable.

Oil/gas is extracted then used a single time and it’s gone.

Of course, percentage just help show relativity. It’s why people can look at a 0.5% increase and dismiss it as not significant.

Would it help if I translated the percentage for you? Linux surged 600000 to 2.3 million.

I’m super confused by your point.

In this case we’re looking at Steam.

I have no clue how many people submit to the steam survey, but I’ll assume it’s representative.

A quick google suggests steam has about 120 million active users.

Linux went from about 1.4% to 1.9%.

Rough math says Linux went from 1.7 million to about 2.3 million.

Or an increase of 600 000.

That a lot, both in relative terms and in real terms.

Here’s a counter example for you.

You own stock in banana company. Over one day the price increases 2x. All the news agency’s are talking about how banana surged in price today. Will you then suggest that banana didn’t surge in price because it only makes up 1% of the overall stock market?

That’s why we’re talking about relative percentages.

In your example we would need to know how many trees existed on your road/city before. If there were less than 3 or 4 trees in your city before this, saying there was a surge is likely fine.

What percentage increase do you feel is required for surge to be a reasonable definition. A 35% increase feels surge-y me.

Fixed it for you…

Basically even if someone it talking about the previous acting career, which on the surface should seem credible. It’s really hard to properly judge if the person actually is creditable because of how often Joe will interview uncredible people and spin them as creditable.

Basically Joe’s creditability has be harmed so it’s hard to trust anything or anyone he talks to at face value

For future reference. Anytime people are talking about “their tax bracket” in a progressive tax system, they are talking about the top level bracket.

It’s typically redundant to, mid conversation, list all the tax brackets that exist under the one you’re talking about.

This was my experience too. Ubuntu asks if I want to install the docker snap, I say sure. I then try to use docker and it’s completely unable to do what I need. I then need to figure out how to uninstall the snap and then install docker normally.

I tried a few snaps, but everytime they were a pain in the ass and I regretted it. Now I avoid them at all costs