4chan wasn’t even the first, it was an English version of a japanese site (futaba channel) which was an image board version of a forum (2channel).
Back in the late aughts, there were a ton of *chan sites. Some even more unsavory than 4chan.
They didn’t say VR was dead, just not mainstream. Which is okay. Not everything has to be.
Ah yes, no influencers at all on Twitter, Bluesky, Mastodon, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, Facebook, LinkedIn, Friendster… Just youtube.
Survivorship bias. Obviously the ones that survived their users long enough to go to recycling would last longer than those that crap out right away and need to be replaced before the end of the life of the whole system.
I mean, obviously the whole thing is biased, if objective stats state that neither is particularly more prone to failure than the other, it’s just people who used a different brand once and had it fail. Which happens sometimes.
You should cross post this to /c/propagandaposters
What leaf blower allows for neat little piles?
Do you think the people running the genocide are the same as the people working in the factories to support their loved ones?
At the end of the day, people will always be people, while megalomaniacal leaders are the ones using them to further their own goals.
Double strong, double sweet.
You mean the law of the strong against the weak? We’re not winning that battle. We can’t even agree to vote consistently, much less in our best interest. What makes you think we can all agree on who’s the right person that needs killing?
Voting works, when people actually do it. It doesn’t work fast, but it works better than random killings.
Well it’s a good thing people are happy with the continued state of affairs where nothing has fundamentally changed!
Well sure, if we just kill everyone we don’t like, clearly things will magically get better.
How do we define that, though? Cause every decision made will make someone unhappy, no matter how much good it might do. Are you going to step up and decide what’s right or wrong?
Ah, so lack of solid opinion is your defense of your support of random killings. You don’t actually support it because you don’t support anything… but you don’t mind if someone else supports in just in case it might help you in the long run.
You’re a professional bystander, someone who hopes someone else does all the hard work in making your life easier.
Mostly due to the efforts of a lot of people working to make things better through political and social action.
But hey, they had that one time where they killed a bunch of people, that must have been the reason their lives are so much better. Clearly
Yeah, and they’re mostly bought by bootlickers.
Man, people really think this is actually going to change things and it’s hilarious.
Well, hilarious in that I have to laugh to keep from breaking down in tears. On one side you have people who will do anything to squeeze every last penny from our quickly decaying corpses, and on the other we have a bunch of people who did little more than bitch and moan until someone does something drastic and ultimately futile in which case they… mostly continue to sit back and watch while assuming everything is somehow magically going to fix itself for them.
People survive lots of heinous shit, that doesn’t mean it helps.
Well I guess we should just start killing people we don’t like just in case it makes the world a better place then, right?
Cause that seems to be the theme of your lack of confidence positions.
They’ll pause to call up more private security to keep themselves safe while they raise your premiums even more.
A Christmas Carol was just a story, not reality. You’re not going to scare CEOs into doing the right thing, especially not with threat of death.
Those people are mostly just naysayers who like shitting on things, it’s best to just not acknowledge them until they actually show up with a cogent thought. Otherwise you’re basically just having their argument for them.