Just a mistake I think. Americans are so steeped in gun culture that when they hear calibur, their brain goes immediately to gun calibers. Autocorrect also might play a role.

They hid it under move to -> archive

is a mechanism for pilfering the shooters organs and selling them on the open market

I understand the sentiment (not that I agree), but this has myriad practical issues. For one, there is no open market for organs, and creating one would make the healthcare system extremely fucked for poor people. Secondly, harvesting organs basically requires the person to die in the hospital. Preferably not full of bullet holes.

collecting his life insurance

My main issue with this is that you screw over the beneficiary of the insurance, who may not have any responsibility for the shooting but could very well be harmed by not having the financial support. Imagine a shooter with a newborn child as beneficiary of the insurance policy; would it be just to take that money from the child?

I think it’s pretty shitty from Arrowhead as well, because they knew six months in advance that PSN requirement was going to happen and said nothing. That should’ve been stated front and center when people bought the game.

Written on 1 April 1998. definitely a joke, though it does work.

There’s not really any definite border. FAA controlled airspace generally ends at flight level 600 (around 60,000 feet, although flight levels are defined by air pressure not distance from the ground, so the actual altitude can vary). Above that will be uncontrolled airspace, though that doesn’t necessarily mean the US won’t claim sovereignty there.

The Outer Space treaty, generally considered the first step in establishing space law, stipulates that “outer space” is for the benefit of all mankind and not subject to sovereignty claims by any country. However there isn’t a legal definition of where outer space begins. The Karman line (100km) is a common practical definition. However the US has flown spacecraft (notably the shuttle) below 80km above Canada, without asking for permission first.

Practically speaking, there are as yet not enough craft flying at these kinds of altitudes for real legislation to be necessary. The spacefaring countries mostly work it out between them on a case by case basis.

I see where you’re coming from, but I don’t think that excuses anything. If you bought a hard copy with the understanding that a digital copy came with the purchase and now they’re taking away the digital copy, that’s still a Darth Vader “I’m altering the deal” type move.

Often, licence agreements stipulate that they are not transferable and thus you have contractually agreed not to resell them. To what extent this is enforceable is… contentious. Different courts have struggled with the topic and have ruled both directions on the issue.

Copyright law as written was not designed for immaterial goods in any way, and the DMCA has done little to improve that. So effectively the judicial branch is in limbo. Corporate America is content to leave the confusion as is. They can just adopt an interpretation of the law that is maximally beneficial to them, and consumers generally don’t have the resources to challenge that interpretation.

Private companies have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders just the same as public ones. The big difference is that they tend to have far fewer shareholders and they usually all have some personal relationship. So it’s less likely to result in a lawsuit.

Gabe apparently owns 50.1% of Valve. I don’t know who owns the rest (I’m reading some places that he got divorced, so possibly his ex-wife?), but if they’re not happy with how it’s being run they could certainly sue. That being said it seems like a money making machine at the moment, so why would you.

The number varies a little bit (I’ve seen estimates 600-1200 kWh) but this is well within an order of magnitude of being correct. It’s the nature of the competitive mining network and the proof of work system: if you can spend more computing power (i.e. energy) than everyone else there are lucrative mining rewards to be had. At the same time adding more computing power to the network doesn’t add more transaction processing power, because mining difficulty is constantly adjusted to keep the speed more or less constant.

This naturally leads to exorbitant power consumption per transaction. Note that most of this power is not being purchased at EU exchange prices (mining naturally moves to where electricity can be had for cheap to maximize profits).

A git branch is just a pointer to a commit, it really doesn’t correspond to what we’d naturally think of as a branch in the context of a physical tree or even in a graph.

But as the article points out, a commit includes all of its ancestors. Therefore pointing to a commit effectively is equivalent to a branch in the context of a tree.

Some other version control systems like mercurial have both a branch in a more intuitive sense (commits have a branch as a bit of metadata), as well as pointers to commits (mercurial, for example, calls them bookmarks).

I mean, git has bookmarks too, they’re called tags.

It’s not that deep. Here’s the two main critiques leveled towards the game in the article.

• you don’t always know the consequences of your actions, and they’re not always predictable: a seemingly sensible choice sometimes ends badly, and a seemingly dumb choice could get you a reward
• you can load a save and redo your things whenever you want, i.e. save-scum

These are both somewhat obvious just from the structure of the game. Ultimately the conclusion the author is shooting for is that this makes Baldur’s Gate 3 a bad game but a good piece of interactive fiction.

The author uses the mechanics of chess often as sort of an example of the pinnacle of game design which to me is telling. Video Games are much broader than that. Insisting that people should not call the thing you don’t like a game but instead “interactive fiction” is pedantry at best, and gatekeeping at worst.

Sure, if you view the game through the lens of chess you will come away with these flaws. But for example, if you always knew the consequences of every choice the narrative tension would be destroyed. Of course chess has no such concern, so if we’re looking at games through that lens then narrative tension is of no value. Ultimately I think this is just a very narrow viewpoint of what games should be.

I think there’s a group of people who are just going to avoid quality completely and have entire factories running at normal quality only. Kinda similar to how some people don’t really do nuclear.

If you don’t like the concept of going into space though maybe this expansion is not for you. I think the base game will get the bot upgrades for free anyways.

Sony and Microsoft do this yeah, but I’m pretty sure Nintendo consoles are sold at a profit.

Seems like a lot of levels required when you can call lightning or moonbeam and get pretty close to the same effect, without any of the multi classing downsides.

If you really want spirit guardians you could also try to talk your DM into letting you take the Orzhov Representative background (from Ravnica).

How could you learn anything about what people think of microtransactions from the success of a game that doesn’t have them? If a beloved franchise added a sequel with microtransactions in it and that sequel tanked, then maybe you’d have a case. From the success of Baldur’s Gate 3 the most you could conclude is “people will still buy a game that doesn’t have microtransactions,” which is not particularly revelatory.

A bunch of AAA games that heavily feature microtransactions are smash hits and made millions of dollars. Sure, people complain about it, but they also purchase tons of them (may not be the same people, mind you). I’m pretty sure we can conclude that not all people hate microtransactions. Hell, publishers will look at Baldur’s Gate 3 and probably go “man, this game is good but if they put some paid cosmetics in there they could have made even more money.”

And it’s probably true.

If a great game like Elden ring would’ve had cosmetic sets you could buy, would it have undermined the “greatness” of the game? I really don’t see it happening.

I agree with you that people mainly care about the game being good. However a game’s budget is more or less fixed. If From had made a bunch of cosmetic sets it would be taking away resources from making the “main” game, and it may not have been as great and polished as it is.

Also, once you have microtransactions in a game, there’s going to be a temptation to maximize the revenue gained from them, which can lead to the aggressive strategies you mention.

I’m not saying it’s impossible to do mtx without ruining the game, but it’s difficult. Without mtx, the only thing you have to maximize your revenue is to make the game as good as possible, and so everyone involved in the game’s development is aligned towards that goal.

Once you add mtx, there will be people involved whose main goal is to maximize revenue from the mtx (and I’m not saying those people are evil or want the game to be bad; they’re just doing their job). And so a sort of tug of war starts to happen between devoting resources and design decisions to make the game better, or getting people to buy your cosmetics. Finding the right balance through that mess is difficult.

Uhh that’s not true? Firefox for Android is Gecko based and doesn’t use chromium.

Maybe you’re confused with iPhones? Firefox for IOS is WebKit based, because that’s what apple mandates. That’s why it doesn’t support extensions. But on android there’s no such restrictions.