Eh, I would have agreed 20 years ago, but of late he seems to be at least trying to right the books before he shuffles off this mortal coil.
Besides, we have new oligarchs to shit on and blame for things and they are infinitely more culpable and shitty than he ever was really.
Absolutely. I won't touch shit until I see the EULA. The fuckery with the ownership of mod code was enough to burn me for KSP. How the fuck do you seize ownership in completeness for an entire code base just because it happens to extend your product. That is like Pillsbury claiming ownership for your grandma's cookie recipe because it contains their flower as the primary component.
"Wah wah DOTA wah wah." So fucking what. It isn't a stand alone, just because someone makes an entirely different game inside of your game and it is more popular than your game does not give you the right to claim their code and profiteer off someone else's passion project without compensating them. You want to own the code, buy it. All of the players still have to buy your game to play the mods, so you are still making even more money you dillholes.
I am subscribed here on Lemmy and they seem to be progressing quite a bit. I am not a game dev myself, but I have some ideas I have been contemplating dabbling in on there.
On 2) Godot has entered the chat.
Interesting take. Would you attribute the overall look to short term gains to the same point in time and reasoning? It is obviously a nuanced problem and I am sure Nixon and Reagan's fingerprints can be found on the problem somewhere, but they were obviously not the root.
Judging by the descriptions given by another user these "between track" drives are A. Part of the race and removing actual time on the actual tracks, and B. Not optional. Those things together make for some seriously bad game design.
For purely academic reasons, is there any "plot" in this for which to watch it?
Agree, but let's not dilute the meaning of "gaslighting". That word has a VERY specific definition and it had been getting used in inappropriate contexts so much that that very specific and necessary definition is being lost. It refers to a specific abusive behavior pattern which needs a good and concrete word to communicate it. My teen stepdaughter had it in her head that us educating her on the world was "gaslighting", which is dangerous because she had the "gaslighting bad" reaction to things that were not gaslighting, and it is not limited to her. There is a concerted effort on the part of some political groups to break and weaponize the definitions of things like gaslighting and manipulation, we need to work to make sure it is not successful.
That is a big question. Rectally sourced information here, but I would probably guess it started in the wake of the Dust Bowl.
Also, under US law, ignorance is not a defense in both civil and criminal court. It does not matter if you did not know it was illegal, it does not matter if you did not know it was happening, if you provide an avenue and forum for illegal activity you are culpable at minimum. The corporate shield will prevent any criminal charges against individuals, unfortunately, but the civil liability is pretty evident. It occurred on their platform which means that they did not take sufficient steps to prevent or discourage the practice in the first place. It should not have been a thing that was present to report or react to in the first place. It falls into the same vein as doing background checks and personality evaluations on prospective teachers and daycare workers. Doing 0 checks to validate that these people are not a danger and then claiming ignorance when they touch children in the broom closet is a nonstarter too.
For a microsecond I thought that said "microbeards" and I was very confused.