Aceticon

Don't take this the wrong way but from the list of achievements she sounds very much a Politician/PR-person/Lobbyist specialized in the area of Space Exploration, not an Engineer or a Scientist.

Still beats Beer-belly Brad by a long distance (probably not hard), but is such a person really worth celebrating in Science Memes?

You're not the only one.

Whilst I do have a small collection of games in Steam, my collection of games in GoG is about 30x larger, because I prefer buying from GoG when I have the chance.

As the old saying goes "Possession is 9/10 of the Law" - when the installer of a game is in your hands (kept in storage media under your control) such as with games in physical media or offline installers downloaded from GoG, even if they wanted to take it away from you, they would have to take you to Court for it, whilst if the installer of a game is in somebody else's hands (in Steam's servers or in GoG's servers if you only ever use their launcher and don't download offline installers) they can take it way from you (even what happenned was that they just mistakenly locked you out of your account) and now it's your problem and you have to throw yourself at their mercy to get what's supposedly your stuff back and if that fails take them to Court (which for most people costs more than the games are worth).

It's hilarious that people think "Steam is great" because they don't often lock people out of their game collections or remove games from people's collections and when they do and people throw themselves at their mercy to get it reversed they're generally understanding, when Steam themselves were the ones who created a system where they have all the power and you have none, it's just that so far they've not purposefully abused it and are generally nice when their own mistakes cause problems which one wouldn't have in a different system - they're comparativelly better than most other stores because those other stores are so shit (except GoG, IMHO), but they're still worse than good old physical media when it comes to consumer rights.

Absolutelly, use Steam when it's worth it for you, just do it with your eyes wide open, aware that you're chosing to be at their mercy because the system they designed for digital game sales makes sure all customers are at their mercy, so they're definitelly not your buddies, just (so far) nowhere as abusive as most faceless companies out there.

PS: Back to the post of the OP, amongst all the digital stores with "it's not really yours" systems, with all the power over gamers than entails, Steam are by far the ones that least abuse it (I think they never did on purpose, though some people have been locked out of their accounts and couldn't recover access to them) so comparativelly are way above the rest, especially Amazon as demonstrated by their practices when it comes to digital books.

Sorta.

The legislation that applies to physical copies of copyrighted materials is different and comes from the time when the only physical copies of copyrighted materials were paper books.

Whilst strictly speaking you are buying a license for both, for physical media it's quite a different format of license with quite different conditions than for digital media.

The physical media license is implicit, standardized (the same no matter where you buy the media, the publisher or even the game) and associated with the media (i.e. ownership of the media means having the license) which means that it's transferable without requiring a 3rd party intermediary (transfering ownership of the physical media means transfering the license that is associated with it).

Digital games licenses, on the other hand, are not standardized and vary from store to store, publisher to publisher and/or even game to game (the usual is to have to accept the terms the store presents you, which are not at all an industry standard set of contract terms, much less a legal standard, and to properly judge them one would require legal help). They're all very explicitly personal (associated with the buyer) and them having or not any of the buyer rights one has in the implicit license of the physical media, is a crapshoot (generally each store has it's own unique licensing agreements, with sometimes unique elements for certain publishers or games). Most notably, it's very rare for them to be transmissible (it hugelly depends on the store) and even then it requires a 3rd party to approve it (generally the store). As far as I know, there is no consumer license for games digital media which has the same or more rights for the consumer than the implicity license for physical media and only commercial licenses (which cost thousands of dollars) will give you more rights than that.

Things like EULAs are pseudo-legal attempts at circunventing the implicit license of physical media, which is why they're not valid in most countries (they're deemed a one-sided attempts at forcing a change of the implicit contract terms of the sale, after the sale has been concluded, and hence have explicitly been judged as having no contractual force whenever those things went to court in most of the World).

The abuse of autoritative sources (not to be confused with "authoritarian") positions for personal upside maximization (which often meant spreading propaganda) and subsequent fall in trust in authoritative sources long predates Trump.

I mean, in the US, Newspapers - which are supposed to inform people, not to convince them of anything - openly gloat about their "opinion making" and are criticized if they do not openly support a candidate in Presidential Elections (the very opposite of Journalism)

Then there's the decades-long massive abuse of "expert sources" on Finance and Economics by Neoliberalism to push very specific narratives, for very specific political ends which overwhelmingly benefited a very specific subset of people.

What you're seeing now is the product of the deceit practiced by many of those who are supposed to be independent experts who inform the rest on important subject, and the blanked distrust on the the Media and "experts" and subsequent blooming of shameless loudmouth liars who speak with maximum confidence in politics is really just the harvesting that which has been sowed since at least the 80s.

IMHO the tipping point was decades ago and what you see now is the acceleration downhill having been going for long enough that the speed of travel downwards has become scary.

Having lived, worked and driven in lots of places in Europe, in my experience the frequency of that happenning depends on the country.

Also, everywhere in Europe it's against the Driving Code to not drive at a safe distance from the vehicle in front of you, so you can get fined for it and will definitelly be found responsible on a collision with the vehicle in front of you.

That said, I'm not surprised that you see more of it in Belgium. You'll also see more of it in Southern European countries.

If the FAA is deemed to not be equivalent anymore to the local air-safety regulators, planes from US-based companies will stop being allowed to fly in the airspace of other countries and planes made in America will not be certified for flying in that airspace or being purchased by companies in those countries until fully checked (at great cost) by a certification authority under the regulatory oversight of a local regulator or one deemed equivalent.

This will quite likely start by the EASA (European Air Safety Agency) not accepting FAA as an equivalent regulator anymore.

They're about as well prepared to deal with computers as people who had a teddy bear when they were children are prepared to be a veterinary.

Both: Airlines from other countries refuse to fly in US airspace because of dangerous ATC and planes from the US are refused entrance in the airspace of other countries because the FAA isn't trusted to enforce proper maintenance schedules on planes from US companies and other countries don't want the additional cases of planes falling from the sky or crashing on landing that would result from de facto unregulated air travel safety in the US.

Also Boeing sales would suffer if the FAA was officially deemed in other countries to not have equivalence with their local air-travel regulators when it came to oversight of plane manufacturing because it wasn't actually doing the job of preserving the safety of air-travel.

Forced diversity characters are generally just cringe.

Characters who are normal people who just happen to be female, of a minority ethnicity, non-heterosexual and so on are generally as good as all other characters because that's just about people living live in an imaginary situation, so just like in the real world not everybody there is a white heterosexual male and people who aren't white heterosexual males are, just like the white heterosexual males ones, not some stereotyped cartoon cutout of a person.

(That said, in Action movies, especially XX century, often all characters are stereotyped cartoon cutouts of a person)

This also dovetails with how Modern Acting techniques work: good actors will naturally play more believable characters in more believable situations because the actor also has their own version of "suspension of disbelief" going on.

If you want a neutral metaphor, it's like the difference between seeing a scene in a Film or TV Series which is pretty obviously product placement for a cola brand were one or more of the characters are using said product in a way that makes sure its brand is seen and mentioned vs a perfectly normal scene were somebody just happens to be drinking something that looks like a cola - the entire vibe is totally different between having something which is not a natural story element shoved there to fulfill objectives other than telling a good story and just telling a good story that naturally reflects the real world in its many facets hence all that's there just feels natural.

Yeah, that stuff it's pretty hard to learn and it's worse when you've never worked in an environment where people in general tend to practice good time management - a lot of things you would normally not risk doing because they look like time wasting turn out to be the key to saving time, avoid wasted work (i.e. time wasted) and avoid problems later (which in turn, also means time when you're the one who has to fix them), but only after you've seen it in action can you know for sure that such things will in overall save you time (and can actually justify spending time doing them to others because you've seen them actually work).

I was lucky that after 2 years working, having chosen to leave my country I ended up in The Netherlands, and the Dutch are very good at working in an efficient and organized way that properly respects work-life balance, so I learned a lot from them and watching and learning how they worked and what resulted of working that way gave me a whole new perspective into the work practices from my first job which I until then though were "the way everybody works in this area".

No idea. I learned it from a manager who went into a management course, was taught it and not even a week later was back in full reactive mode treating any new thing coming in as Urgent Important even when non-urgent or at least non-important, as she had been doing before going to that course.

Let's just say she was a lousy manager.

Well, as joel_feila pointed out, people tend to be forced to, at the very least, work in the Urgent and Important quadrant because that's what one has to give top priority to, no matter what (and part of the work of triaging the demands on one's time is to make sure one doesn't miss or delay things from that quadrant because of too many Non Important stuff interrupting one's work).

However you want to try and get yourself in a situation were Non-Urgent Important stuff is what you do most, because amongst other things by tacking potential problems in Important domains before they become Urgent, you have a lot more space to do it properly, something which in turn avoids further problems due to one's half-arsed solutions for Urgent not working anymore of breaking easilly when touched.

In summary, Non-Urgent Important is the ideal, Urgent Important is what gets top priority, Non-Important is what you do when there's nothing in the other 2 quadrants to do.