EldritchFeminity

I never said otherwise. I said that the economy does better under Dems than Republicans. That doesn't mean that it's the way things should be done, just that under Dems jobs are added to the economy rather than lost and the national debt grows at a slower rate than under Republicans. Between the two, the economy objectively does better under Dems.

I simply was saying that the "Biden bad because brown people and the economy broke because woke" narrative is a farce no matter how you look at it.

Your timescale is skewed. You're either young, pushing a narrative, or both, so let me describe how things look historically from a sample size that actually matters. 2 presidents is not a big sample size.

Starting in the 80s, the American economy began to decline and the national debt began to rise under Reagan and politicians like him - trickle down economics had begun. In the late 90s, a president balanced the budget and actually began reducing the national debt (by cutting funding to social security and other less than stellar actions). That would be Clinton. And then along came Bush Jr and the post 9/11 forever war in the Middle East. Ever since the start of the Iraq war, the national debt has risen like an ICBM. I remember when news channels talked with disbelief about Bush possibly doubling the national debt within a year.

So it's 2008, Bush just finished up his second term, and hundreds of thousands of people have lost everything in the 2008 depression (except for Bush's rich friends. They got government bailouts and made bank buying up all the poor people's houses). So, what now? Now, a black man who runs on a campaign of changing things for the better wins the election in a landslide, and tries to do most of what he promised. The economy sees large amounts of growth and jobs added, and the spiraling of the national debt slows down. However, Republicans vow to never let a black man do anything in the White House and the Democrats capitulate before the fight ever starts, so Obama is hamstrung and despite trying, ends up being forced by Republicans shutting down the government to not fulfill any of his campaign promises in his two terms (except for installing a healthcare system that Republicans fought tooth and nail against because it makes it illegal for health insurance companies to kick cancer patients off their health insurance and then refuse to cover them for having a preexisting condition: cancer).

Now it's 2016 and a man who ran on a campaign of undoing everything the black man before him did and the promise of kicking out all the politicians that he's been friends with since his big business days in the 80s has been elected. And what does he do? He spends the first 2 years largely going line by line and undoing every single thing that the black man did while in office, and then spends the next 2 years mostly giving tax breaks and government money to the friends he said he would kick out and "drain the swamp" while the national debt once again rises like a tide in a swamp and the economy stagnates. Then 2019 hits and the economy collapses again under a worldwide pandemic, just a month after he got rid of the office the black man set up to prevent a pandemic.

So now it's 2020 and the country has just elected the old guy who was the black guy's right hand man. He campaigned on not rocking the boat and keeping the course. Nothing exciting, but we'll see what happens. True to form, 4 years of stabilization happen. The debt slows down, the economy sees jobs come back, and things are looking a little more calm.

Then, in 2025 the old guy who was so upset about the black guy comes back and his swampy friends are right behind him. The debt begins to balloon and the economy starts to shudder under the weight of global tariffs and worldwide uncertainty of a possible trade war against friend and foe alike. And that's just in the first 3 months of the year.

Tl;dr: the economy consistently grows under democrat presidents and the national debt slows down. Under Republicans, the economy shrinks and the debt skyrockets. This stays fairly consistent the farther back you go, but Reagan is an important point in this because he started trickle down economics and showed the Republicans that big government can be good for them, too, so long as they hold the purse strings, and Bush is the other important point because he's the tipping point for when the debt went from manageable to using a sink to try to put out a burning building.

You mean Diesel Knights?

At that point, why not just 3d print one or something. Save money by not giving it to a scummy company, and hey, throw a raspberry pi in there or something with an emulator and you can probably actually run Virtual Boy games on it.

Ironically, Windows users have generally felt that way with every new Windows version after 7. Vista was painful for a lot of people and 7 was basically Vista but with the problems finally fixed, and every version since then people have complained that the newest version feels unfinished.

And in a lot of ways they have been. In 10, there are at least 2 different UIs for navigating the system and settings. Some options have been migrated over to the newer one, some only exist there, and some still only exist in the old version of the settings. And then 11 made it even worse by moving a number of frequently used options in the right-click menu into a second menu that you have to open after you right click.

People hated 10 at first, too, but by now they've gotten used to it and Microsoft has ironed off most of the rough edges people hated. But it's been building for years and this pattern has seemingly hit some kind of breaking point with the present-day circumstances.

So it's always had a negative connotation to it? Because that's what I'm saying. That Google is using the word by its correct definition, but adding to the original definition a subtext that side loading is a bad thing. Hence, they're twisting it from its original meaning to a negative connotation to the average person (who has never heard the word before).

It's like Windows' UAC popping up with a warning when you try to install just about anything. To the average computer illiterate person, they're going to second guess whatever they're installing as "dangerous" while the rest of us are like "shut up Windows, of course I want to install the Nvidia drivers, that's why I clicked on the damn thing."

By justifying getting rid of it as "security concerns". This is the first time the average user will have heard the term, so it will be linked in their head to this and therefore as risky/dangerous and they won't question why Google would want to make it harder, if not impossible, for people to install apps or other software without Google's explicit permission.

The walls around the garden get taller, and those inside won't question why there aren't any doors.

Fingers crossed. I've been waiting a long time to get back into VR and replace my OG Vive.

Google is twisting the word to justify their purpose of preventing people from installing anything that isn't from their walled garden. So anything that sounds even close to support for that motive is going to be met with pushback, even if it is a word that existed before Google's use of it. Google's implicitly saying that installing something from anywhere other than their store is something nefarious or otherwise bad/risky. Google is trying to perform the same kind of security theatre as the US with the NSA at airports.

Honestly, it doesn't matter to me where you install an app from because you're simply installing it. Whether that's from Google's storefront, Apple's, or somewhere else, you're installing an app. The circumstances where I'd need a term to specifically say that I'm installing an app from outside the default app store would also be covered by simply saying "I got it from GitHub (or wherever)." It takes the same energy to answer the question of where you got it from regardless of whether you say that you installed it or you side loaded it.

They mean a physical Target store, not a phone app. Target can track customers walking in and out the door and what they buy, how long they stay, etc. but they can't track anything about you if you just go to a different store, especially something like a small business which isn't hooked into the ad data sponge.

The issue people have with making the distinction is that Google is trying to spin the narrative and make side loading seem like a dangerous and bad thing to the average user base who don't know any better.

They're taking umbrage with you agreeing that quantitative usage of a storefront makes something simply installing vs side loading a program. Because it helps Google's narrative in a way.

There have been leaks about the Deckard 2 for years now and people always say that Valve will announce it any day now. I'll believe it when I see it at this point.