• Boozilla@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Looks at ballot.

        “Is carbonite, like…an actual thing? Can I be frozen like Han Solo? I have a little bit of money saved up. Which stupid tech bro startup can do this for me?”

            • mynachmadarch@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              7 months ago

              They ideal for most of them is absolutely that they can be frozen while still alive and unfrozen later. We are nowhere near that technology though so most fallback to the second hope. Yes, that is that when they’re unfrozen in the future we can cure whatever it is that killed them. From what I’ve seen in documentaries, most of the people signing up know it’s the world’s furthest longshot, but they figure they’re dead either way, why not take it? Worst that happens is they stay dead but hopefully science learned something from their body at least, best case is they wake up in the 24½th century and keep on truckin.

              • thefartographer@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                Also, considering that they need access to freeze things inside of you quickly enough, such as your brain, I think most subjects would prefer that they were dead first.

        • bigkahuna1986@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          I don’t have carbonite but for the right price I can pack you into a freezer filled with ice. That should do the trick.

    • woelkchen@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      In a sane country there would be laws to prevent this monopoly shit.

      The problem is that Microsoft is no monopoly in gaming.

      • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        They have the money to basically buy any studio they want if they could, Nintendo and Sony included.

        Their gaming division isn’t a monopoly, but with their parents funding yeah they could be and that’s the problem. They could buy everyone up and leave them selves alone in the market.

        • woelkchen@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Their gaming division isn’t a monopoly, but with their parents funding yeah they could be and that’s the problem.

          I agree it’s a problem but without Microsoft being a monopoly in gaming, no watchdog will do anything about it.

          • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            The FTC was trying to do something. Than Microsoft convinced them they weren’t going to do X if they sold Y, so they let the cloud gaming go, and then immediately did what they said they wouldn’t.

            If they didn’t lie to the FTC they would have done something about it than and there.

            It’s not a monopoly until it is, and that’s what they are trying to avoid, stuff getting to that point in the first place.

              • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                Yes, they let the cloud gaming go so the EU wouldn’t deem them a monopoly, they than told the FTC they weren’t going to lay anyone off. And a month later or so they laid off 2000 employees while using the excuse it was happening anyways regardless of the merger.

                What other merger was there you could be confusing this with?

                • _tezz@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  I wasn’t confusing any merger, I was wondering what action specifically you were referring to is all. There were a few different points the FTC was concerned with in that case.

        • woelkchen@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          So you want to do something about it after they are a monopoly?

          Me? Why me? You were talking about countries and I was explaining that countries don’t apply monopoly laws to non-monopolies.

          • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            Actually the laws are meant to apply BEFORE that happens.

            What good is trying to stop a monopoly after it’s fully established? You need to deal with it when it starts, not when it’s done.