Cethin

It’s also a big red flag.

You’ve already got plenty of comments explaining why you should switch. You obviously should ideally. Check Protondb.com to see if your games runs on Linux.

Payment processors are no longer being used to buy NSFW content, its being used to purchase wallet funds. So the association is no longer valid.

You can make that argument, sure. You could also make the other argument, that their services are being associated with this content by proxy, at minimum.

I don’t agree with them. I’m just pointing out what their argument is.

I also agree Valve should make an alternative. They’ve got the resources and the reach to do it. They could probably even get other companies to use it and take a percentage of each transaction for another revenue stream. As it is, they’re losing a percentage to these companies, and now they’re fucking with their business too. They should be doing everything they can to get away from them.

How are you putting money on your account without the payment processors? Every purchase is through them, directly or indirectly.

I assume the payment processors demanded these games not be on the marketplace at all, not just that they didn’t handle the payments for them.

It’s still not creative. It’s just rehashing things it heard before. It’s like if a comedian just stole the jokes from other comedians but changed the names of people. That’s not creative, even if it’s slightly different than what anyone’s seen before.

I would rather someone posted saying they knew shit all about the sport but they were interested, than someone feigning knowledge by using ChatGPT as some sort of novel point of view, which it never is. It’s ways the most milquetoast response possible, ironically adding less to the conversation than the question it’s responding to.

That’s literally the point of them. They’re supposed to generate what the most likely result would be. They aren’t supposed to be creative or anything like that. They’re supposed to be generic.

About the coding thing…

It can sometimes write boilerplate fairly well. The issue with using it to solve problems is it doesn’t know what it’s doing. Then you have to read and parse what it outputs and fix it. It’s usually faster to just write it yourself.

There are lots of good examples, they’re usually smaller studios/indie though. GaaS sucks when you get the people with business degrees in on it. It’s great for people who are working on a game they’re passionate about and just want to keep adding more content.

They could also design a guardrail that is more rigid. We protect drivers enough already, we shouldn’t comepletely throw away pedestrian safey because some driver cant keep their car on the pavement.

Again, yes. Concrete barriers do this. I’m not disagreeing we should be protecting pedestrians, just that a guardrail isn’t the answer.

Possibly, but it also keeps the budget much lower. Are they casting the best people, or good people who also don’t ask for a huge budget?

I think people don’t understand how a guardrail works. If it were on the other side, it still likely wouldn’t protect any pedestrian. They’re made to collapse if you run into them, not stop you instantly. If you hit this, it’s going to go outwards several feet, to slow the vehicle down slowly instead of instantly. This means if it’s on the other side the vehicle is still going onto the sidewalk.

Concrete barriers can protect a walking path, but not a guard rail.

I got it for free on Epic. I launched it and something wasn’t working right, and tried a few different Proton versions. Then it just would launch because Denuvo thought it was different systems. I thought I’d come back later and try it, once that wore off, but I never did and probably never will, so the game wasn’t even worth trying it for free for me. Lol. Maybe I’ll try it some day, but I doubt it.

Buy indie games that are actually trying to make good games and do cool things though.

Isn’t before the price is set in stone the time to make a big deal out of it? Like you said, they probably leaked it to gauge the response. We should mock it for the absurdity that it is so they know they’re way off the mark before it comes out.

That is, assume the price is something we want changed. Honestly, I don’t really. I want this to flop. We need fewer Microsoft products out there, not more. I want people on Linux powered devices, so we get more support for Linux software.

It also requires perfectly rational actors with perfect information. If they can suppress information about competition or manipulate you to have loyalty then it doesn’t work, and both of these happen constantly.

Yeah, this is legitimately an amazing ad, though Google may bot want it because they probably make more money off your data than you buying the device.

I don’t know if you understand what protectionism is. Protectionism is favoring domestic production over foreign. I don’t think it has anything to do with your comment. The way you’re using it seems to be just not holding them accountable. That’s just capitalism though. They buy the legislators who create the justice system.

I agree larger corporations should face more scrutiny or liability. I’ve never seen a Libertarian express this opinion though. The standard libertarian position is: “The larger company earned its money and should be free to spend it how they wish, including molding the system to its desires. The Market decided they’re the most capable after all.”

I haven’t seen those originals disappear…

It happens. You probably wouldn’t notice it, but it’s constantly going on. It’s particularly bad for niche product. Things like charging cables or whatever, the market is large enough to support multiple products, and there’s only so far Amazon is willing to cut it and those are cost so little for anyone to make.

Neither should be the end goal, the goal should be leaving people alone so they can pursue happiness on their own.

A goal has to be something measurable, but sure. Yeah. That’s basically what I said. Improve lives (meaning happiness). That essentially implies freedom to persue what you want. I don’t know what else it could mean. However, it also need to include companies leaving people alone. The government isn’t the only source of authority influencing peoples lives, and we need a government to protect them.

Obviously, I haven’t dealt in specifics at all and I represented it in fairly extreme language to make a point. The idea I’m trying to convey is that I think less is more absolutely applies to the government, and we should strive to simplify it to where it’s transparent enough that the average person actually understands what government does.

I largely agree, but I think the key point of why anarchism (aka, removing hierarchy, not no government) is the way I went is because, with hierarchy, those with resources will always buy an advantage. We need a government that actually represents the people, which means it needs to be made of the people, not lifelong legislators. Some of that should be direct democracy where it can be, but rotating representatives chosen from regular people who serve temporary terms, so they can’t gather power, is ideal. As long as capital controls the government then capitalists will buy the system, and libertarians generally (not saying you specifically) argue this is part of the design and good, because they proved “they know best.”

I have serious practical concerns with anarchism, but that is certainly the ideal.

You should have serious practical concerns with everything. My practical concerns with libertarianism is what led me to social anarchism. For example:

Consumer protections should largely be unnecessary if the market is sufficiently competitive, and ending protectionism should provide that…

Why? Why would ending protectionism necessarily demand competition? Without government stepping in, why wouldn’t the largest companies create barriers that prevent competition? They can user their capital to undercut competitors until they can’t remain solvent, then increase prices far above cost. They can also buy out competitors before they are real competition. They can use their market dominance to demand suppliers to show their product more prominently, or to only show their product.

There are far too many ways the dominant company can curtail competition, and we’ve seen it played out many times even with our current system that Libertarians want to remove the guardrails from. For example, items listed on Amazon that sell moderately well, Amazon creates knockoffs for. They then sell them at a cheaper price under the “Amazon Basic” name until the original is gone, and then they increase prices. This is what the free market looks like.

This is the kind of thing that led me to social anarchism. People are the important thing, not companies. We need a government that’s empowered to protect people, but that let’s people do what they want (assuming they don’t hurt other people). Ideally also we remove hierarchy from the companies and have them owned by employees or the people also. Letting them treat humans as a human resource (which is crazy that HR can be called that and people don’t see a problem) is the issue. Improving the lives of people should be the end goal, not profit.

No, I’m pretty sure he grasps that concept, and he thinks what he believes is that universal truth.