u/FooBarrington

Even for CPU-heavy titles it depends on the exact instructions. Sometimes multiple instructions in one architecture can be replaced by a single one in another. But that's rare, on average performance will be negatively affected.

They are trying to make Alyx work standalone: https://www.digitalfoundry.net/news/2025/11/valve-looking-into-a-steam-frame-half-life-alyx-standalone-experience

But that will probably be an exception due to the amount of resources Valve will invest into getting it to work well, you're right that few other games on that level would run standalone.

I'd argue it's a great indicator, as expenses are necessarily tied to the wages of the population. An example like yours simply doesn't happen.

This means you have to come up with a representative example of how to calculate expenses, and I haven't seen a better approach for that than median wage, which seems to correlate highly with expenses.

Of course it's possible. The minimum wage doesn't directly affect the median wage (unless more than half the population only gets the minimum wage).

If you think it's impossible, please explain why.


How does it not make sense? They already give a warranty for the repair (which you seem to think is unreasonable). At this point we're only discussing the length of the warranty.

Okay, but Valve does give some warranty for repairs, so why does that matter?

It's also fairly reasonable in my eyes. Is Valve not confident their repair will actually work & last those 12 months at least?

I think I can help you with that 😏 though I can't get much airtime, sorry.

wat

I mean, if you insist...

Sure, I'm not against research! But I am against diverting investments from renewables to nuclear, because this unavoidably slows down fossil phaseout.

Yeah, people just think "nuclear = good" without considering the time to build new reactors, the economic efficiency, and similar factors.

HoW cAn ThErE bE gLoBaL wArMiNg If It'S sNoWiNg OuTsIdE

There is more to the calculation of risk than just looking at this data. You know very well how large the impact of individual disasters is.

Sure, nuclear could be much cheaper! But it would also be much less safe, because all the regulations and "legal stuff" are what forces the people running the plant to run it in a safe way. The same goes for renewables, but if renewables fail, they don't contaminate the surrounding area for decades or centuries, so there are far fewer of these regulations. If you disagree, I challenge you to provide examples of unnecessary regulations that make nuclear so much more expensive. Show us the numbers.

It also saves on space where renewables can cause greater environmental impact in terms of taking up space or wildlife fatalities.

There are many great ways to deploy renewables so they *support* the environment. Have you looked at the environmental impact of the mining required for nuclear plants? The impact they have on the rivers they use for cooling, and so on?

Again, weird you don’t mention wave or geothermal at all as renewables that have access to near constant power generation.

It's pretty weird that "renewables" somehow doesn't include those for you.

Because everyone knows there's literally only fossil fuels and nuclear energy, nothing else.

Sure, and the next catastrophe will have some good reason too, yet it will happen due to human error and greed.

Hate to break it to you, but with a limited amount of money you can only increase your generation so much. Choosing a power source that's less efficient from a monetary perspective means you can displace less fossil fuel.

Read a book on mathematics if you don't believe me.

Is the economic sense really a good argument? That implies that a privatized group needs to make profit, all external effects paid for, and still be able to give you a good price.

No, it's not about privatized groups. Even the government has limited money (they can print more, but that leads to inflation). This means the money should be spent efficiently, so we get the most out of it. Nuclear is - by far - the most expensive form of energy we have. We can build more renewables + storage with the same money.

Is the economic sense really a good argument? That implies that a privatized group needs to make profit, all external effects paid for, and still be able to give you a good price.

The only way to make an expensive energy source cheap is by subsidizing it. We'll get more out of the same amount of money if we build cheap energy sources.