HarkMahlberg

The developer is closely linked to Swedish publisher Paradox Interactive, which tests, markets, sells, distributes, and owns the intellectual property of all games by Colossal Order.

You do realize it was very likely not CO’s decision to release the game in this state, right? Paradox owns the IP, they’re publishing the game, they decide when it gets to ship, or else they won’t pay CO. Game companies have absolutely died by going against the publisher and going bankrupt from withheld funding, e.g. Free Radical Design and Lucasarts.

Like have you ever worked as a software engineer before? Clients always set the deadline, and they’re almost always unrealistically short time-frames. CD Projekt Red self-published, they had no excuse to release Cyberpunk the way they did. But we’re not talking about a developer in charge of their own destiny here. We’re talking about a developer with a client: Paradox. You’ve got the actual antagonist staring you in the face, but you’re going to blame the developers?

Aren’t the most commonly accepted sorting algorithms O(nlog(n))? Quicksort? Mergesort? Those are considered bad?

Your waking life for minimum wage and your dreams for free.

as if he’s definitely automatically wealthy to a level that he doesn’t have to worry about being bullied.

“One of the indulgences of great wealth is freedom from other peoples’ opinions.” Trump and Musk both seem to have missed this memo. They’re so self-absorbed and insulated that they can’t imagine there are people out there that they can’t buy, can’t bribe, and can’t silence. Their lives must be so empty they can only hear the echoes of their critics… or maybe that’s just my imagination.

Am I drunk or does the thumbnail look like China owns Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan? WTF?

It was a major component in playing Death Stranding optimally.

Thanks. I tried to post the original link but it just says “No posts.” Weird.

!meanwhileongrad

Stuart Seldowitz served as acting director for South Asia at the National Security Council under former President Barack Obama and worked in various roles in the U.S. government across decades under multiple presidents, according to government webpages and a biography for a government relations firm he worked with.

I think there’s some truth to that, but in my admittedly “outside-looking-in” experience, most full-time content creators have other means of raising money to operate: Patreon, merchandise, Twitch subscriptions, YT Membership, video sponsorships, etc. So I don’t think the total loss of advertising would lead to the total loss of content creators. You’d lose some, but others would survive. People like making content even when there’s no profit motive at all, it’s just less feasible to do it at an industrial scale if you don’t have more solid financial banking.

Consider Twitch subscriptions. You pay $5 to a streamer, you never see ads on their stream. No ads doesn’t mean no streamer. Likewise, streamer still streams even if you don’t subscribe, you just see the ads. As a business model, this is a little neater, tidier, than Google’s. On a technical level, it’s also better defended against adblockers since ads are injected into the stream, they’re not a separate stream you can just block.

Yes they “need” to stop adblock, but for the advertisers, not for the content creators.

I think for a while, their strategy to ignore adblockers worked just fine. User counts were rising, ad payouts could be and would be cut, ads could be and would be placed in different parts of the video, videos that weren’t monetized were getting ads thrown in just to make Youtube/Google/Adsense money. YT was pulling lots of levers to keep the value of advertising on the platform high.

That is, until Adpocalypse. My theory is, after this point, advertisers began to question how many more levers could be pulled until they addressed the elephant in the room, an elephant that was getting larger and larger: the adblockers. Let’s be fair to Google (ugh), it would be much much easier to pull all those levers, than to tackle the technical challenge of stopping client-side software from running on their website. Once interest rates rose, and advertiser pressure reached it’s current peak, Google started taking anti-adblocker actions: Manifest V3 to kill ublock on Chrome, Youtube’s current system, etc.

They need people who won’t watch ads to stop using it to lower their costs.

This assumes that the biggest cost to Youtube is serving the content, not storing the content. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I think it’s a valid question because if storage is the larger cost, then it doesn’t matter how many visitors visit the site, Youtube is still warehousing all that content. By the way, in that scenario, it’s actually better for Youtube to keep as many viewers on the site as possible, adblockers or not, because they can use higher viewer numbers to increase the price of the ad space they charge to advertisers.

I mean what business survives with zero income?

A business that kills it’s competitors by operating at a loss at first, and then jacks up its price once consumers have nowhere else to go.

I wish the US had anything even close to this level of consumer protections and rights.

Even when they seize the opportunity to poach nearly half of their competitor, they still think they gotta prop up an office instead of letting them work from home. Hilarious.

Which is weird because we have our own edit indicators. Maybe a future enhancement on the federation side of things.

Ah: “Yes I editted it within the first like 3 minutes of posting…” maybe kbin doesn’t count that.

Yeah I meant the fact that it was edited didn’t federate.

Hm, it didn’t seem to federate to kbin.

Russia was moving Ukrainian children into Russia, that’s a component of genocide. German Jews were forced into ghettos, then into concentration camps. The ghettos didn’t “prevent” genocide, they facilitated it.

The United Nations first defined genocide in 1948 in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The treaty outlines five acts that can constitute genocide if they are done “with the intent to destroy an ethnic, national, racial or religious group”:

1. Killing members of the group
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm
3. Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the group’s physical destruction in whole or in part
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births
5. Forcibly transferring children

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/whats-the-difference-between-genocide-and-ethnic-cleansing

They both serve the purpose of erasing the identity of a people. The methods and means are common between the two: you destroy their homes, you force them to move, you starve them, you kill the ones who don’t comply, and you leave the weak and struggling to die. The distinction you’re making matters in a UN court, where Genocide has a legal definition and legal consequences, whereas Ethnic Cleansing does not. But that doesn’t make ethnic cleansing some preferable alternative to genocide.

If you told a civilian in Gaza “you’re not being genocided, you’re being ethnically cleansed!” Do you think that would change their understanding of the situation much?

Outside of a UN tribunal, that’s a distinction without a difference.

Agreed. And many of counterexamples belong to the Live Service model. Halo Infinite, Anthem, Evolve (I’m digging deep on that one), etc.