My current solution is checking Switch games out of the library.

What most people get irked about is loss of ownership, which can be a separate topic with careful management. For instance, if you buy an ItchIO game, there’s no DRM and you can copy it anywhere - I imagine many would be fine with digital downloads if everywhere used that system, but on the corporate side they’d likely be grumbling about piracy.

That’s why my better version of male trip power fantasy is the tough-as-nails delta operative Captain Martin Walker, of Spec Ops: The Line.

Did this happen because of Google API pricing changes?

While I’m very angry at the prejudice within the army, this does seem like an interesting aspect to it I hadn’t heard of before.

But yeah, as someone else said, it sounds like it was not just to combat roles.

What I absolutely love is the specific, mysterious revelation of “How is he doing this, this shouldn’t be possible”.

Spec Ops: The Line touches this a little bit - with some actions and messages leaning toward incredulity that 3 soldiers have been destroying an entire battalion.
The movie Willie’s Wonderland also aims for this. The lite mystery is how the animatronics became possessed, but the big mystery is who/what the hell the Janitor that wandered into town is.
On a similar note, you get a bit of that feel in Half-Life 2 from Dr. Breen’s angry message to the Nova Prospekt soldiers for them missing you at Black Mesa East; “This is not some agent provocateur or highly-trained assassin!! Gordon Freeman is a theoretical physicist!”

I highly doubt a social network would ever lack incentive for increased engagement (via shock value and toxicity or otherwise) in a non-capitalist society.

They may gain popularity, societal influence, or whatever else instead of money. They’re still motivated to deepen that connection.

I think this is the problem gooner games have run into.

Like the Neptunia games. They are not great games at all by any measure. But the only people that would publically post reviews of them are likely going to review them positively.

I get a lot of good information from bad reviews, just by having a bit of introspection.

“This game is too easy!!”
Oh, that’s okay, I was looking for something easier.

“Two body types!!”
Oh, wow, so the only people that hate it are bigots.

“If you die once to the first boss, then it kneecaps your stats and you get no healing items for half the game.”
Wait, what…? But everyone else loves the game. Is this true?
“lol it’s fine, only scrubs die to the first boss, if you do just restart the 3-hour intro.”
Are these reviewers paid!? No thanks.

I was a mega-fan of both Ori 1 and 2. I’ve got a mug based on the first game, but when I first saw the trailer for this game, nothing about it interested me. Kind of like the Xbox 360 era of “brown and gray cover shooters” I’ve never understood the appeal for grim, depressing medieval worlds. I like having some vibrancy and inventiveness, as well as some motivation behind the violence used to achieve some end.

One of the only Soulslike games I’ve finished is Another Crab’s Treasure. The story/setting in that game ends up being pretty depressing, but it at least maintains a lot of humor and colorful design.

What’s more, I looked through the negative reviews, and a lot of them touch on incomplete or over-punishing systems, rather than seeming motivated by external factors.

I wouldn’t see it SO negatively. If they were paying people for reviews, then yes, that’s corruption; but every YouTuber uses phrases like “Drop a like” and it’s considered normal. When you worked hard on something, I think it’s common to ask for a positive review. People are sentient enough to choose whether to do so.

That’s a very interesting quandary. I know most workers usually hate the revision portion of the process where they’re throwing away their work, but they’re also getting billable hours for it.

So if an artist genuinely has future clients lined up, and is only starved for time, I imagine they’d want the path that gives them the most finalized pieces they can share. But it would have to be case by case.

The baby muffin scribbled words of admiration on his dad’s wrapper. He sees it, and doesn’t want to take it to work. Next panel suggests he’s about to change his mind from seeing his son’s disappointment - but then last panel switches it up, having him steal his son’s wrapper, put him in the one he drew on, and head off.

The most secure device ever made is a Rock.

You cannot have your bank account stolen from a Rock. People will never get your personal files or medical info from a Rock. People will never spy on you through the Rock.

But you also can’t do much with a Rock.

Is there any reputable journalist that has echoed this take? It sounds very stretched. Monopolization on Word is one thing, but I’ve heard of some governments finally getting fed up and moving to open source.

I won’t deny Microsoft has done bad shit. I’m currently boycotting them for their assistance to Israel. But “most evil corporation” is a gigantically high bar in the world we live in.

“Billionaires shouldn’t exist” I definitely agree with. I think the production of billionaires is a problem. Focusing on the current existence of all the ones we have now won’t accomplish much sustainably and doesn’t prevent the problem in the future.

I’d really prefer the energy and focus went to better tax laws to prevent higher wealth gain; even if it’s just a start. Gates and other rich people have previously supported such changes.

I’ve been browsing the whole thread. I saw the thing about vaccine patents which seems to have pros and cons; and it’s true Microsoft gained its wealth in anticompetitive ways. But I’ve not seen any well documented, proven dismissals of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s work.

Stocks are an unpredictable mess of human behavior; you can’t put anything in a calculator to see what they will be tomorrow. It is based on market confidence.

90% of investors won’t buy claims of “It’s just for charity” and will only see a massive sell off of MSFT, and drain the rest in turn through panic sales. It’s how every stock exchange crash has happened (though it can happen to just one or a few companies)

The basic lesson for finance as in all things is whatever you want to do, it’s better to do it slowly over time. Even charities work better if they have funding over a long period to hire staff and plan events, rather than a sudden billion all at once for a room of 8 volunteers to figure out.

Dude, even just planning and organizing a UBI takes time and effort.

It would start with a billionaire requesting people’s personal data (because he couldn’t publically admit to having it through dark sources) and who wants to do that?

He also couldn’t afford a UBI in every nation on the planet; right now his help is focused on countries with far worse standards of living than the USA.

I will say, the business of fake charities is so common that it does sound almost preferable to make their own, and actually understand where aid is needed in the world.

It’s an old topic for me, but I do remember hearing about the B&MGF working on clean water solutions in other parts of the world.

Also; Warren Buffett recently pledged to the charity, while having his own trust for his kids. That action wouldn’t make sense if the charity just existed to protect family.