Personally, I'd say anything with RetroAchievements support. Why buy new when the classic is still just as good as it was back then? I don't care much about graphics, though, so remakes don't typically offer much I care about. I don't want changes to game mechanics or content, I just want to be able to play it without needing specialized hardware I have to attach to my TV.

Ah, but did you get the RetroAchievements for it? I've been on a retro game binge lately, and it's been really cool to get achievements. Definitely helped me stick with a couple games and finish them, and they've encouraged me to do things in game that I wouldn't have otherwise bothered with.

You're focusing on the non victory and ignoring the failures. Cowards.

That's not true, they successfully did their job of protecting capital and the owner class. Same reason they don't go after Trump. He's in the owner class, so their job is to serve and protect him.

So then our problem is that we allow moneyed interests to monopolize home ownership so they can extract wealth from people who actually generate it. It is quite literally the definition of rent seeking behavior.

I didn't realize I needed to have a formal policy plan before I opener my mouth. I'll freely admit I don't fully understand the intricacies of how we handle real estate, but the general belief that real estate prices must be protected and they must generally trend upwards is the unhealthy core of the problem. It prioritizes profits over human needs.

Aren't there currently more empty homes than homeless in the US? Like, by a decent margin, too? I think that statistic is getting a bit dated, but I also don't expect it to have improved. What we really need is to treat homes as homes, as essentials for life, instead of as investments. But, of course, that'd cost rich people money instead of giving them a way to make even more money, so we can't do that. I'm sure some towns and cities could benefit from more homes, but the core of the problem is societal, not material.

When I see a GPL license I don't see freedom. I only see forced openness, which makes me immediately avoid that library, since I can't statically link to it.

One of the arguments in favor of GPL and other "forced openness" licenses is that users should have the right to understand what their own device is doing. You paid for your computer. You own it. You should dictate how it operates. You should at least have the option of understanding what is being done with your machine and modifying it to fit your needs. Closed source software may provide utility, but it doesn't really further collective knowledge since you're explicitly refusing to publicly release the code, and it provides obscurity for developers to hide undesirable functionality like data collection or more directly malicious activity.

I'm not personally sure how I feel about that argument myself, but I can at least readily acknowledge it as a valid one whether I agree with the decision to force openness or not.

A two party system is the natural result of the American voting system. A first past the post voting system will always eventually lead to a two party system. If you want to avoid that eventuality, you need to use a different voting system.

even though the fidelity is lower.

That's the trade off you make with AM. With just about all wireless transmission techs, really. There seems to be an inverse relationship between range and bandwidth. If you want one, you sacrifice the other. Compared to FM, AM radio leans more towards max range, so the audio quality isn't quite as good, but it goes for miles.

Kinda looks like Todd Howard's face on Henry Cavill's body and skull.

Maybe not legally punished, but this very article we're discussing is about how insurance companies are, in fact, punishing you financially for it. As for the false accusation, sure, but how likely is anyone to even figure it out? You're not being dragged into court, and people don't even know this is happening yet. It's only illegal if you get caught. I don't expect them to report it to anyone. I just expect data collectors to sell data and other businesses to buy it for the express purposes of financially screwing you. You may stay out of court, but that extra 21% charge is gonna cost you a couple hundred per year at least.

That assumes the outdated map software manages to somehow make an accurate report. Most likely, if it makes one, it'll be "Going X over a Y MPH area" even though Y is wrong, or it'll be just "speeding by X MPH for Y seconds/minutes". Either way, nobody is likely to verify and correct the data, so you could be punished for perfectly safe and legal driving.