That manufacturer falls under "fool, money, parted, easily." A Finalmouse which is probably the pinnacle of lightweight gaming mice, costs about $180 and they want $100-ish more than that?
> Yes, it's expensive but it still costs less than replacing mice over and over.
I have a ten year old Razer Ultimate still going strong, buddy. $100 new.
> My otherwise mild skin condition completely destroys the shitty grippy/gummy rubber they put on scrollwheels and sometimes the sides of the mice.
No, whatever you're putting on your skin is. In any case: buy a $20 set of grips/pads and problem solved...
> the carbon fiber rod that snaps into place horizontally across the shape makes it more rigid than the stock mouse.
If you're having issues with rigidity of your mouse, you're holding it too tight...
I think you've missed every point I was making, keep up the good work.
> Finalmouse
Trash product, none of the people I play with or against use one. You've kind of outed yourself here but I'll humor you further.
> I have a ten year old mouse that works fine
Good for you. I assure you I use mine far, far more than you. If you knew who I was you could go find me on esportsearnings, I've won against and have played with some of the people you see in mice ads.
> No, whatever you're putting on your skin is
I don't put anything on my skin. My body makes far more of everything than it needs. I have to wipe them down with a bit of soap and water every few hours or they will be absolutely caked in skin. If I wait more than 4 days to file or cut my fingernails they are disgustingly long.
> buy a $20 set of grips/pads and problem solved
Have you ever tried doing this? They are attached to the shell with adhesives that cannot be removed without also destroying the plastic underneath.
> rigidity
Was highlighting how the weight reduction does not come at the cost of structural stability. If you knew what you were talking about you'd know many struggle with squeezing the mouse too hard. I do not have this issue
The biggest issue with Logitech mice is that they're purposefully designed to fail.
Logitech uses shitty microswitches that either stop working or start 'bouncing' - a single click becomes two or more clicks.
This has been an issue with logitech mice for 10+ years and it's so prevalent it can't possibly be by accident. Their mice are disposable as a revenue model.
Mice should not fail, and in fact, I've never had a non-logitech mouse fail.
A friend heard me say this and said "Well I love my logitech mouse" and I said "and how many have you bought?" They admitted they'd had to replace it several times because...drumroll please...various buttons on it stopped working or started double/triple clicking.
I have gaming buddies who have had their very expensive logitech gaming mice fail, repeatedly, barely months into owning them. My ten year old Razor is still going strong, save for reduced battery life. The battery still lasts for many hours while gaming, which is plenty for my purposes, so I haven't bothered yet.
The real joke would be Xbox Elite controllers. Several hundred dollars and infamous for failing sometimes within months. Never, ever buy one without a replacement plan.
The capital of a country, especially one in a special status like Washington DC, should be a shinning star of perfection, nit in the top 20 hell holes you'd never want to be caught dead in at midnight alone.
That sounds like a reference to North Korea. If that wasn't your intention: the capital of a country is usually (but not always) also the largest city. The largest city will have the largest group of people on the fringe. By definition it will never be a 'shining star of perfection', but neither are they in the 'top 20 hell holes', they have more of everything, and that - unfortunately - includes more crime. But the DC version is a bit more complex in that the biggest criminals are not found on the streets but in various offices.
I literally said "one of the highest" not the absolute highest. Being in a top 10 or 20 list on murder rates is not an achievement to strive for, but it absolutely places you in upper echelon of murder. DC has had 100 murders so far in 2025, just 12 shy of 2024 with 3.5 months to go: https://mpdc.dc.gov/dailycrime
St. Louis situation is absolutely abysmal. 20 is way too high, 69 is way too high. These are 3rd world numbers that are absolutely inexcusable. And we're only talking about murders here, if you look into other violent crime data, it's also substantial for D.C.
The FBI frequently gets involved in murder cases all over the country, there are field offices everywhere. States are significantly different things than the special federal District of Columbia. There, it is generally up to the Governor to deploy the national guard, although plenty of exceptions and precedents exist for the President to do so.
Deployment of the National Guard within a state is at the discretion of that state's governor. DC is the only place the president has jurisdiction in this scenario.
> Deployment of the National Guard within a state is at the discretion of that state's governor.
Legally, there are exceptions to that (primarily the Insurrection Act, though there are some deployments that are permitted within states on federal authority on other legal bases with tightly-constrained functions), and practically, the legal limits don't matter because response time off the courts is to slow for them to act as a meaningful brake. (E.g., the lawsuit filed the first court day after the order to mobilize the guard for LA just reached the trial stage this week.)
... except this president federalized and deployed the national guard in California only earlier this summer, over the objections of the state's governor, so is that rule still a rule?
He was able to provide a justification, however thin, which he presumably can't in the case of St Louis. Not that I disagree with the general sentiment. He's only doing this as a political stunt and St Louis wouldn't serve that purpose as well even if he could somehow swing it legally.
I'm sure there are also federal buildings in St Louis; the justification from California works almost anywhere.
But critically, the trial in which the legality of that action is considered is happening the week. Whether or not the action is judged to have been a constitutional violation ultimately doesn't matter; the administration did it, and even if the court rules against the administration, it will have been two months too slate. Effectively, the president has demonstrated he can federalize the national guard whether or not the governor consents for long enough to score whatever political/media points he's currently fixated on, and if the legal system stops him, he will have moved on to other issues.
There's exceptions to general rule, the national guard is ultimately a state-federal entity and the President can activate them to enforce federal law. Laws on this go all the way back to 1807. They've been federalized by Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon without consent of the associated Governor.
The country is predominantly Catholic. So both prudish views on sexual content, but also wanting to pretend sexual abuse by priests in their religion, and their religion protecting those priests, isn't the problem - nope, it's the interwebs creating child abusers. That is coupled with racist fear of terrorist attacks being committed by the African and middle eastern immigrant populations.
Sure are a lot of white elephants in the room with you...
As a French person, let me tell you you are wrong.
French people mostly don't give a shit about religion and do not have any prudish views. We have many nudists beaches and women are regularly topless on the beach. Talking about sex if accepted in society and between friends and family.
So it's not about that at all.
What most French people are though is little children that need to be guided and protected by the state. Without the state they are lost. If you look at the news, the most recurring theme is: "why hasn't the government solved this problem for us poor souls? We are helpless, help us!"
Therefore French people accept the state and all that it encompasses. They have little protests here and there and sometime they succeed in making the state back down but in the end the state usually wins.
It's a form of learned helplessness and a very sad and toxic relationship between the French state and it's citizens.
While I agree with you, this situation is also created by an all-encompassing State that rules every aspect of the French life.
Along with taking more than half of the citizens' income (on average), which dramatically restrains any agency that an individual would usually get from being self-sufficient financially. The snake eats its tail.
There's some old influence from the religion for sure but it's nowhere as important as you think.
France is still one of the least religious countries in Europe (Czech Republic usually being the least religious and France in the second position) and people talk about sex openly like a normal subject even at work.
I think you’re confusing France with Italy. France has had Simone de Beauvoir and still has a very strong feminist culture, had Mai 1968, has same-sex marriage since 2014 and 10 years later it was the first country in the world that added the right to aborption in its constitution; it has huge pride parades every year, not so long ago had an openly-gay Prime minister. It’s fine to talk about sex at work or with the family; you can see boobs on the cover of national newspapers and nobody talks about it because it’s perfectly fine.
...which Republicans swore up and down was temporary and yet, oddly, kept getting renewed wirth no evidence whatsoever it was necessary to stop a planned terrorist attack or that it would have stopped the WTC attacks themselves.
I bet 90% of the population or more has no idea that the Patriot Act was dumped and replaced with the nearly identical FREEDOM Act. Which took multiple tries to pass because they knew if they just kept hammering away, they'd eventually get it passed.
Yeah, they called a wildly invasive domestic spying bill the "freedom" act....
Yeah I have a feeling this thing is gonna be exactly like that. Even if this doesn't pass, they'll just rename and repackage it and try again until everyone gets fatigued enough and doesn't have energy to oppose it anymore
Invent seemingly fantastic new material. Discover it is harmful to humans and wildlife, accumulates in groundwater, etc. Bury that discovery.
Get caught after decades of wild profits, the occasional secret settlement, and spend a decade more fighting legal action before finally running out of appeals or the writing is on the wall, and accept it and pay out.
Start selling water filtration systems, thus profiting off people dealing with your pollution.
This is what I find so frustrating about "the fight against cancer." I'm convinced cancer is so prevalent because corporations are poisoning the shit out of our environment, and thus our water supply, our food, our air. Because we're not equipped with timestamping chemical detection systems, it's difficult to identify the exposure that caused it or increased the person's risk, so industry gets a "freebie" death nobody can pin to them. As long as the chemical isn't toxic enough to be obvious - the companies get away scott free, despite an extensive history of the chemical industry time and time again coming up with some major novel chemical that comes to be used all over society and turns out to be toxic.
Bill Moyers once submitted his blood to a lab and asked them to test for everything they could identify in terms of industrial chemicals, pesticides, etc. The blood was a veritable toxic soup (and some of the control sample containers were contaminated from the supplier, showing how pervasive the toxins are): https://www.pbs.org/tradesecrets/problem/popup_bb_02.html
You don't "fight cancer" doing walks and charity balls and cute-kid-starts-fundraiser-because-friend-dies-from-leukemia. You fight cancer by addressing the toxins being pumped into us in the name of profit and "bettering society", allowed to get away with it because of how difficult it is to show any particular chemical directly caused the cancer.
According to Passmark the Pentinum 4 1.3Ghz is 55 times slower than a Raspberry Pi 5, so I'd guess it's at least two orders of magnitude. The original Pi is 16 times faster than a P4 1.3Ghz...
You can recycle e-waste (and yes, I know SOME e-waste ends up in China/India/etc. Not all does.)
The e-waste is of substantially less concern than the massive difference in carbon footprint from power consumption.
It's a bit odd to declare "citation needed" and then claim things like "rare usage" which just so happen to suit your argument, while ignoring things like, say, the fact that NiMH batteries mean batteries are only shipped to the end-user once.
I use NiMH batteries in all my thermostats, two scales, etc. Bought them 10 years ago or so. The thermostats get charged every few months and the scales every few weeks.
I think ~12 or so NiMH batteries have replaced, by this point, by rough back-of-envelope-math, thousands of of alkaline batteries.
Did it occur to you that probably one of the most energy-intensive parts of a AA battery's life is its transportation from factory to user? Which NiMH batteries only have...once? And most of that transportation is powered by non-renewable fuels, etc.
A quick check on GPT suggests that shipping the thing via ocean freight is going to be comfortably less than 1% of the carbon emissions of manufacturing. Batteries are really tiny, so they ship well, and they are really complex, so they are more difficult to manufacture than say a simple plastic toy.
I'm glad you are making use of your li-ion batteries, I'd love to see aggregate data on that. I know in my own personal life, rechargeable AA batteries usually get lost or forgotten before their third recharge for me. Climate wise, I'm probably net negative overall on my rechargeables.
But it's also kinda not the right thing to focus on for climate. Driving 50 miles in a gas car will cause a greater climate delta than manufacturing a battery. Eating 12 ounces of beef (300g) causes more emissions than manufacturing and shipping a battery. One international flight can be equivalent to several hundred batteries, etc
The problem is not the cameras, it's the contracts.
The very simple solution is to prohibit camera companies getting a cut of ticket fines, direct funds to the state coffers, and mandate cameras can only be installed after proving via paperwork with photos that the stretch of road has proper signage.
Red light cameras? They drastically reduce t-bone impacts (which have high rates of serious injury and death) while slightly increasing rear-end collisions (which have very low injury rates and were the fault of the drivers speeding and following too closely, and/or driving distracted.) Not the fault of a traffic camera...
> Yes, it's expensive but it still costs less than replacing mice over and over.
I have a ten year old Razer Ultimate still going strong, buddy. $100 new.
> My otherwise mild skin condition completely destroys the shitty grippy/gummy rubber they put on scrollwheels and sometimes the sides of the mice.
No, whatever you're putting on your skin is. In any case: buy a $20 set of grips/pads and problem solved...
> the carbon fiber rod that snaps into place horizontally across the shape makes it more rigid than the stock mouse.
If you're having issues with rigidity of your mouse, you're holding it too tight...