Vent

Blatantly incorrect

Sure, but this is specifically about consoles. They don't have the same open market that PC digital games have so the only way to not be price gouged is buying physical.

Bluray is extremely scratch resistant. I'm sure there are extreme cases, but scratched disks haven't been a problem for 15+ years.

Lmao. I primarily game on PC. I own hundreds of digital games. Even with it's superior sales and open market, PC struggles to beat buying a used game from marketplace or ebay.

Also, are you seriously dissing physical media? The benefits of actually owning something cannot be overstated. Even with Steam, you're technically just buying a revokable license to play a game. Physical media can not be revoked, it can be resold/shared, and it works offline. See: the recent PSN outage where people were locked out of their digital games for a few days.

Plus, having a physical collection is just plain fuckin cool.

Hence why nobody should ever buy the digital-only edition of a console. You buy like one used game and make the money back. Then, you can sell that game once you're done and turn a profit over digital-only.

Surely the price will then drop once the tarrifs are over!

Tape is still the cheapest option for mass amounts of storage since the actual tapes are so cheap. You just need to store enough data to offset the cost of the drive. Drive cost increases very quickly the higher you go in storage density.

Key word is "watching". They're more than happy to have an audience as long as they get what they want. And they do and they are.

Fret not! Lots and lots of apps are just PWAs packaged into thin wrappers so they can be distributed through an app store. Humanity gets all, or at least most, of the benefits of the web with unmatched cross-platform support, and our Grandmothers and 12 year olds still get to tap on the Spotify and Starbucks icons. Win-win!

Interesting that that is the workflow that works best for you. I've personally always found it a much better experience to do my searching/browsing off of the server and wget whatever I need to download. If that's truly your situation, then you may just need to use another browser that supports JS or use a different search engine. I prefer DDG anyway, lol. Not a huge deal.

You've seriously been in situations where you had no access to the internet except through a terminal, and you had to do a google search? No phone or other computer that you're remoting in from?

Even so, there are terminal-based browsers that support javascript like brow.sh or links (not lynx).

I doubt the nothing-but-terminal users comprise a significant enough portion of Google's userbase to justify the extra costs to test and maintain non-JS functionality.

I think this isn't a case of if Google can, but rather of why they should. Do enough people really use the modern web without JavaScript to justify spending the resources to test and maintain functionality without JS? And they probably don't want to let the few people that don't have JS to open support tickets or write articles about how google.com is broken. Easier to just block it on purpose than to let it decay.

It makes more sense that a government website would support it, since they can't let even a single person fall through the cracks, and changing laws/regulations is more difficult than making a company decision.

Search suggestions require JS. Also, why would Google spend the resources supporting the 5 people that block JS when virtually all websites and users rely on JS. This is a nothingburger of a story.