By using the term "SJW", you have OUTED yourself as someone who has had to deal with annoying, dishonest, power hungry, attention-seeking, hypocritical SJWs.
After an extremely successful IndieGogo campaign, leftist comic book stores colluded to refuse carrying Jawbreakers, and to intimidate the publisher into pulling out:
TL:DW - It's the movie screen. When it's shown on the lunar surface, it looks like it's in the middle of a movie set. When Dave encounters it in space near the end, it's horizontal, and when it tilts backwards the camera mimics it.
I wrote about this three years ago during AMAgeddon under Chairman Pao, so Reddit has been behaving this way and trying to push "safe spaces" like this for a long time:
[Marketers] want to buy their way in, but not if some dirty peasant can tell the truth and (through sheer merit) get voted up and be taken just as seriously (or more seriously) than their bought & paid for message.
So Reddit sees advertisers chomping at the bit to throw money at it, but first Reddit has to demonstrate that it can crush contrary opinions at will.
Those normal ads you speak of aren't good enough for Reddit's leadership. They clearly believe there is enormous value to leveraging synergies^W^W . . er . . I mean, disguising their ads (if only at first glance) as posts by normal users, and they appear completely blind to the damage this does to their user experience. I see a couple possibilities:
(1) They really believe enough users will be entirely fooled and "engage with the brand" to offset the users who are pissed off and (eventually) never fooled again.
(2) They're aware of how it pisses users off and only care about convincing advertisers of (1).
Just another in a long line of longstanding issues that got zero coverage before the media started pretending that "Trump did it" or that it happened because of Trump.
The biggest advantage of streaming, as opposed to physical discs or downloads, is that it removes hardware barriers for games.
That's debatable. What's not debatable is that it adds new, probably insurmountable barriers.
The biggest "advantage" is DRM via the tightest leash imaginable, 100% to the benefit of the publisher, not the gamer.
I'll quote an earlier post instead of retyping it:
This is how I always explain streaming games to people who can't immediately see the horrible problems with them:
Imagine if the old Ubisoft always-on DRM were an inherent, unremoveable aspect of the game system rather than just something tacked on to a few individual games after the fact, such that Ubisoft couldn't even begrudgingly neuter it in a patch. Well, a streamed game is even worse than that would be.
The game doesn't even run locally. All you get is streaming video/audio and all the lag you'd expect (including controller lag), which is a recipe for disaster in North America. And any interruption in the connection that lasts more than a few tenths of a second is going to behave like the equivalent of a "freeze" or "hang" that you'd NEVER tolerate in a properly local-hosted game. Not even the most twitchy DRM existing today has that problem.
Some people consider IPS monitors unsuitable for games requiring fast reflexes (i.e. FPSes) due to their double-digit response times. Internet latency is often worse and certainly more unpredictable than LCD monitor response time, and with streamed games it applies to audio and keyboard/controller/etc input too.
Then there are the bandwidth requirements.
Let's say you're lucky enough to have a 30mb/s connection. Why would you want to use it to transfer your game's video instead of, uh, a DVI cable, which is capable of 4 Gb/s? The people who developed DVI apparently understood that that 1920 x 1200 pixels w/ 24 bits/pixels @ 60Hz results in bandwidth well over 3 Gb/s. The people who developed streamed games seem very, very confused (at best).
Those of us who know anything about bandwidth and compression and (especially) latency can see the enormous technical obstacles facing a service like this, and Onlive never did anything to explain how they intended to solve them. Instead, they did everything they could to lock out independent reviewers with NDAs and closed demonstrations. A friend of mine described it as the gaming equivalent of the perpetual motion scam, and IMO that's spot on (except that streamed games would still have the draconian DRM issues even if it worked perfectly).
Streamed games appear designed from the ground up to benefit the game publishers and fuck the customers, exactly what you'd expect from any DRM system.
P.S. Remember when Microsoft intended 24-hour XBox One check-ins, and gamers rejected that? How the fuck are mandatory check ins going to fly when measured in milliseconds?
As I understand US law, if two citizens leave the country and have a kid, then that kid is also a legal US citizen, and may return to the country with them. Is Mexican law regarding this different? Are they not allowing the parents to bring their kid back to their country with them?
This is how I always explain streaming games to people who can't immediately see the horrible problems with it:
Imagine if the old Ubisoft always-on DRM were an inherent, unremoveable aspect of the game system rather than just something tacked on to a few individual games after the fact, such that Ubisoft couldn't even begrudgingly neuter it in a patch. Well, a streamed game is even worse than that would be.
The game doesn't even run locally. All you get is streaming video/audio and all the lag you'd expect (including controller lag), which is a recipe for disaster in North America. And any interruption in the connection that lasts more than a few tenths of a second is going to be behave like the equivalent of a "freeze" or "hang" that you'd NEVER tolerate in a properly local-hosted game. Not even the most twitchy DRM existing today has that problem.
Some people consider IPS monitors unsuitable for games requiring fast reflexes (i.e. FPSes) due to their double-digit response times. Internet latency is often worse and certainly more unpredictable than LCD monitor response time, and with streamed games it applies to audio and keyboard/controller/etc input too.
Then there are the bandwidth requirements.
Let's say you're lucky enough to have a 30mb/s connection. Why would you want to use it to transfer your game's video instead of, uh, a DVI cable, which is capable of 4 Gb/s? The people who developed DVI apparently understood that that 1920 x 1200 pixels w/ 24 bits/pixels @ 60Hz results in bandwidth well over 3 Gb/s. The people who developed streamed games seem very, very confused (at best).
Those of us who know anything about bandwidth and compression and (especially) latency can see the enormous technical obstacles facing a service like this, and Onlive never did anything to explain how they intended to solve them. Instead, they did everything they could to lock out independent reviewers with NDAs and closed demonstrations. A friend of mine described it as the gaming equivalent of the perpetual motion scam, and IMO that's spot on (except that streamed games would still have the draconian DRM issues even if it worked perfectly).
Streamed games appear designed from the ground up to benefit the game publishers and fuck the customers, exactly what you'd expect from any DRM system.
P.S. Remember when Microsoft intended 24-hour XBox One check-ins, and gamers rejected that? How the fuck are mandatory check ins going to fly when measured in milliseconds?
FEMALE JOURNALISTS: Have you been harassed by Elon Musk fans? Please DM me your most horrific tweets and messages. AND PLEASE SHARE THIS
Completely ignoring the ethical concerns to run off and manufacture a narrative of mysoginy and harrassment . . . the same Gamergate-style behavior all over again.
Silly us, we thought this had already been settled decades ago with the moral panic over Mortal Kombat. Nintendo self-censored the SNES version and lost millions, while Sega raked in the cash. MK II would be released with blood and gore on both consoles, but with the new Mature rating. Parents could inform themselves and choose accordingly, while the choices of consenting adults weren’t to be fucked with.
But nooo, we had new moral panics led by Jack Thompson and Anita Sarkeesion, with the gaming press even cheerleading the latter.
By now, Cambridge Analytica must have had ten times the news coverage that PRISM did. It's amazing how much the MSM suddenly pretended to care about user privacy once they could loosely tie it to Trump and push a partisan political agenda, and make ever more excuses for their loser candidate.
AFAIK all their stuff already technically had video (most were even mp4s), but you could count on it being silent. Looks like Imgur links will no longer be relatively safe to open in a quiet environment.
As a side note, the animated gif is a testament to the importance of compatibility and adoption for a file format. It sucks at compression and quality, and doesn’t support any sound whatsoever.
How many expert committees and standards organizations and patent wars revolved around implementing and promoting dozens of “superior” video formats (including codecs and containers and server/client software)? Despite all that effort and conflict, the animated gif reigned supreme as THE most widely used video format of the internet, at least until the rise of Youtube (and it was still competitive for a while afterwards). Because it works absolutely everywhere, since the 90s.
"Solo" began opening in previews on Thursday night in North America, with forecasts of an debut weekend of $130 million to $150 million
Dream on. Foreign box office totals have been grisly so far.
A lot of people don't realize how severely The Last Jedi harmed the franchise as a whole by souring audience expectations (and it won't get fixed before this Boba Fett flick, if ever).
The last redesign (sometimes?*) made it impossible to simply search a topic and view the results chronologically, so that I can easily see all new articles and ignore the old. Just let me do that, and don't censor based on politics.
I'm not interested in videos on the news feed.
* Sometimes it appears that part of the old Google news format is present, but usually when I search it goes to mobile hell.
It's the twisting of the word "discrimination" to be always bad. Discrimination is something everyone does everyday. How is it being used? Just to exclude women and minorities? That's bad.
Read it. He's explicitly against discriminating based on sex and ancestry.
Are you discriminating against a restauraunt that was in the news for an E. coli outbreak? That's not a bad use of discrimination or unreasonable.
He supports discrimination based on merit. You've said absolutely nothing useful here . . . not about Rafael, anyway.
For a while we've seen attempts like this in the open source world.
Want to muscle your way into an OSS project, despite lacking the talent or skill (or willingness) to contribute anything other than drama, identity politics, and an insatiable urge control others (or remove them if they don't fall in line)? Force a Code of Conduct (which is often explicitly racist and/or sexist, dismissive of merit, and vague enough to be selectively enforced) down its throat! It even works on the largest, most influential projects, and lets you dictate developers' behavior on unrelated corners of the web!
He says the reason for abandoning LLVM development after 12 years is due to changes in the community. In particular, the "social injustice" brought on the organization's new LLVM Code of Conduct and its decision to participate in this year's Outreachy program to encourage women and other minority groups to get involved with free software development.
This paraphrase deliberately attempts to mislead the reader into thinking he is anti-woman and anti-minority.
The last drop was llvm associating itself with an organization that
openly discriminates based on sex and ancestry (1,2). This goes
directly against my ethical views and I think I must leave the project
to not be associated with this.
He is in fact against discrimination and Outreachy's exclusionary nature.
Imagine Silicon Valley writing a "Good For Society" US Constitution, and whether it would have anything resembling the 1st or 2nd (or 4th or 5th) amendments . . .
Shamus Young did an excellent writeup of how this Kickstarter project has probably destroyed any future hope of a reboot/remake: https://shamusyoung.com/twenty...
TL;DR - In the pitching/fundraising stage the demo appeared to demonstrate a clear, plausibly attainable vision of what a System Shock remake should be.
Then, well into development, the vision inexplicably changed from a faithful remake to a soulless clone of every other AAA shooter, with time wasted on cutting edge graphics (engine change from Unity to Unreal) and features (like a gun to freeze and shatter enemies, something that wasn't even in System Shock). They were also producing lots of high-quality concept art (again, well into development).
From the available evidence, Young suspects they were trying to attract a "savior" publisher to fund the project, instead of delivering on the Kickstarter goal of an earnest remake. But as he points out, there isn't enough of a fanbase for System Shock to be a AAA game:
If you spend fifty million dollars making System Shock then you’ll never get a return on your investment. This game is only viable as a low / mid budget title, and Nightdive has made it clear they’re not interested in making that sort of game, even if they somehow got another infusion of cash.
So the only hope was the modest budget title which these guys promised they were going to do, and then they essentially betrayed the backers.
Slashdot Mirror
By using the term "SJW", you have OUTED yourself as someone who has had to deal with annoying, dishonest, power hungry, attention-seeking, hypocritical SJWs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Something that readers clearly want is being denied to them by the SJW cancer in the industry.
Comic book publishers are facing a growing crisis: Flagging interest from readers and competition from digital entertainment are dragging down sales.
What a surprise that you'd deliberately ignore the elephant in the room.
Not saying it's "correct," but I liked this interpretation of the monolith:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
TL:DW - It's the movie screen. When it's shown on the lunar surface, it looks like it's in the middle of a movie set. When Dave encounters it in space near the end, it's horizontal, and when it tilts backwards the camera mimics it.
https://news.slashdot.org/comm...
[Marketers] want to buy their way in, but not if some dirty peasant can tell the truth and (through sheer merit) get voted up and be taken just as seriously (or more seriously) than their bought & paid for message.
So Reddit sees advertisers chomping at the bit to throw money at it, but first Reddit has to demonstrate that it can crush contrary opinions at will.
Those normal ads you speak of aren't good enough for Reddit's leadership. They clearly believe there is enormous value to leveraging synergies^W^W . . er . . I mean, disguising their ads (if only at first glance) as posts by normal users, and they appear completely blind to the damage this does to their user experience. I see a couple possibilities:
(1) They really believe enough users will be entirely fooled and "engage with the brand" to offset the users who are pissed off and (eventually) never fooled again.
(2) They're aware of how it pisses users off and only care about convincing advertisers of (1).
Just another in a long line of longstanding issues that got zero coverage before the media started pretending that "Trump did it" or that it happened because of Trump.
The biggest advantage of streaming, as opposed to physical discs or downloads, is that it removes hardware barriers for games.
That's debatable. What's not debatable is that it adds new, probably insurmountable barriers.
The biggest "advantage" is DRM via the tightest leash imaginable, 100% to the benefit of the publisher, not the gamer. I'll quote an earlier post instead of retyping it:
https://slashdot.org/comments....
This is how I always explain streaming games to people who can't immediately see the horrible problems with them:
Imagine if the old Ubisoft always-on DRM were an inherent, unremoveable aspect of the game system rather than just something tacked on to a few individual games after the fact, such that Ubisoft couldn't even begrudgingly neuter it in a patch. Well, a streamed game is even worse than that would be.
The game doesn't even run locally. All you get is streaming video/audio and all the lag you'd expect (including controller lag), which is a recipe for disaster in North America. And any interruption in the connection that lasts more than a few tenths of a second is going to behave like the equivalent of a "freeze" or "hang" that you'd NEVER tolerate in a properly local-hosted game. Not even the most twitchy DRM existing today has that problem.
Some people consider IPS monitors unsuitable for games requiring fast reflexes (i.e. FPSes) due to their double-digit response times. Internet latency is often worse and certainly more unpredictable than LCD monitor response time, and with streamed games it applies to audio and keyboard/controller/etc input too.
Then there are the bandwidth requirements.
Let's say you're lucky enough to have a 30mb/s connection. Why would you want to use it to transfer your game's video instead of, uh, a DVI cable, which is capable of 4 Gb/s? The people who developed DVI apparently understood that that 1920 x 1200 pixels w/ 24 bits/pixels @ 60Hz results in bandwidth well over 3 Gb/s. The people who developed streamed games seem very, very confused (at best).
Those of us who know anything about bandwidth and compression and (especially) latency can see the enormous technical obstacles facing a service like this, and Onlive never did anything to explain how they intended to solve them. Instead, they did everything they could to lock out independent reviewers with NDAs and closed demonstrations. A friend of mine described it as the gaming equivalent of the perpetual motion scam, and IMO that's spot on (except that streamed games would still have the draconian DRM issues even if it worked perfectly).
Streamed games appear designed from the ground up to benefit the game publishers and fuck the customers, exactly what you'd expect from any DRM system.
P.S. Remember when Microsoft intended 24-hour XBox One check-ins, and gamers rejected that? How the fuck are mandatory check ins going to fly when measured in milliseconds?
n/t
As I understand US law, if two citizens leave the country and have a kid, then that kid is also a legal US citizen, and may return to the country with them. Is Mexican law regarding this different? Are they not allowing the parents to bring their kid back to their country with them?
This is how I always explain streaming games to people who can't immediately see the horrible problems with it:
Imagine if the old Ubisoft always-on DRM were an inherent, unremoveable aspect of the game system rather than just something tacked on to a few individual games after the fact, such that Ubisoft couldn't even begrudgingly neuter it in a patch. Well, a streamed game is even worse than that would be.
The game doesn't even run locally. All you get is streaming video/audio and all the lag you'd expect (including controller lag), which is a recipe for disaster in North America. And any interruption in the connection that lasts more than a few tenths of a second is going to be behave like the equivalent of a "freeze" or "hang" that you'd NEVER tolerate in a properly local-hosted game. Not even the most twitchy DRM existing today has that problem.
Some people consider IPS monitors unsuitable for games requiring fast reflexes (i.e. FPSes) due to their double-digit response times. Internet latency is often worse and certainly more unpredictable than LCD monitor response time, and with streamed games it applies to audio and keyboard/controller/etc input too.
Then there are the bandwidth requirements.
Let's say you're lucky enough to have a 30mb/s connection. Why would you want to use it to transfer your game's video instead of, uh, a DVI cable, which is capable of 4 Gb/s? The people who developed DVI apparently understood that that 1920 x 1200 pixels w/ 24 bits/pixels @ 60Hz results in bandwidth well over 3 Gb/s. The people who developed streamed games seem very, very confused (at best).
Those of us who know anything about bandwidth and compression and (especially) latency can see the enormous technical obstacles facing a service like this, and Onlive never did anything to explain how they intended to solve them. Instead, they did everything they could to lock out independent reviewers with NDAs and closed demonstrations. A friend of mine described it as the gaming equivalent of the perpetual motion scam, and IMO that's spot on (except that streamed games would still have the draconian DRM issues even if it worked perfectly).
Streamed games appear designed from the ground up to benefit the game publishers and fuck the customers, exactly what you'd expect from any DRM system.
P.S. Remember when Microsoft intended 24-hour XBox One check-ins, and gamers rejected that? How the fuck are mandatory check ins going to fly when measured in milliseconds?
http://archive.is/WdAq6
FEMALE JOURNALISTS: Have you been harassed by Elon Musk fans? Please DM me your most horrific tweets and messages. AND PLEASE SHARE THIS
Completely ignoring the ethical concerns to run off and manufacture a narrative of mysoginy and harrassment . . . the same Gamergate-style behavior all over again.
Silly us, we thought this had already been settled decades ago with the moral panic over Mortal Kombat. Nintendo self-censored the SNES version and lost millions, while Sega raked in the cash. MK II would be released with blood and gore on both consoles, but with the new Mature rating. Parents could inform themselves and choose accordingly, while the choices of consenting adults weren’t to be fucked with.
But nooo, we had new moral panics led by Jack Thompson and Anita Sarkeesion, with the gaming press even cheerleading the latter.
By now, Cambridge Analytica must have had ten times the news coverage that PRISM did. It's amazing how much the MSM suddenly pretended to care about user privacy once they could loosely tie it to Trump and push a partisan political agenda, and make ever more excuses for their loser candidate.
AFAIK all their stuff already technically had video (most were even mp4s), but you could count on it being silent. Looks like Imgur links will no longer be relatively safe to open in a quiet environment.
As a side note, the animated gif is a testament to the importance of compatibility and adoption for a file format. It sucks at compression and quality, and doesn’t support any sound whatsoever.
How many expert committees and standards organizations and patent wars revolved around implementing and promoting dozens of “superior” video formats (including codecs and containers and server/client software)? Despite all that effort and conflict, the animated gif reigned supreme as THE most widely used video format of the internet, at least until the rise of Youtube (and it was still competitive for a while afterwards). Because it works absolutely everywhere, since the 90s.
Dream on. Foreign box office totals have been grisly so far.
A lot of people don't realize how severely The Last Jedi harmed the franchise as a whole by souring audience expectations (and it won't get fixed before this Boba Fett flick, if ever).
2019 will be the Year of the Self-Driving Car on the Black Top.
The last redesign (sometimes?*) made it impossible to simply search a topic and view the results chronologically, so that I can easily see all new articles and ignore the old. Just let me do that, and don't censor based on politics.
I'm not interested in videos on the news feed.
* Sometimes it appears that part of the old Google news format is present, but usually when I search it goes to mobile hell.
It's the twisting of the word "discrimination" to be always bad. Discrimination is something everyone does everyday. How is it being used? Just to exclude women and minorities? That's bad.
Read it. He's explicitly against discriminating based on sex and ancestry.
Are you discriminating against a restauraunt that was in the news for an E. coli outbreak? That's not a bad use of discrimination or unreasonable.
He supports discrimination based on merit. You've said absolutely nothing useful here . . . not about Rafael, anyway.
For a while we've seen attempts like this in the open source world.
Want to muscle your way into an OSS project, despite lacking the talent or skill (or willingness) to contribute anything other than drama, identity politics, and an insatiable urge control others (or remove them if they don't fall in line)? Force a Code of Conduct (which is often explicitly racist and/or sexist, dismissive of merit, and vague enough to be selectively enforced) down its throat! It even works on the largest, most influential projects, and lets you dictate developers' behavior on unrelated corners of the web!
http://archive.is/4vV8z
https://www.reddit.com/r/Kotak...
https://www.reddit.com/r/Kotak...
http://todogroup.org/opencodeo...
https://www.reddit.com/r/Kotak...
http://contributor-covenant.or...
http://developers.slashdot.org...
https://www.reddit.com/r/freeb...
He says the reason for abandoning LLVM development after 12 years is due to changes in the community. In particular, the "social injustice" brought on the organization's new LLVM Code of Conduct and its decision to participate in this year's Outreachy program to encourage women and other minority groups to get involved with free software development.
This paraphrase deliberately attempts to mislead the reader into thinking he is anti-woman and anti-minority.
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermai...
The last drop was llvm associating itself with an organization that openly discriminates based on sex and ancestry (1,2). This goes directly against my ethical views and I think I must leave the project to not be associated with this.
He is in fact against discrimination and Outreachy's exclusionary nature.
Imagine Silicon Valley writing a "Good For Society" US Constitution, and whether it would have anything resembling the 1st or 2nd (or 4th or 5th) amendments . . .
Just ask a comedian in the UK how quickly the mantra "Hate Speech is Not Free Speech" became "Joke Speech is Not Free Speech."
https://shamusyoung.com/twenty...
TL;DR - In the pitching/fundraising stage the demo appeared to demonstrate a clear, plausibly attainable vision of what a System Shock remake should be.
Then, well into development, the vision inexplicably changed from a faithful remake to a soulless clone of every other AAA shooter, with time wasted on cutting edge graphics (engine change from Unity to Unreal) and features (like a gun to freeze and shatter enemies, something that wasn't even in System Shock). They were also producing lots of high-quality concept art (again, well into development).
From the available evidence, Young suspects they were trying to attract a "savior" publisher to fund the project, instead of delivering on the Kickstarter goal of an earnest remake. But as he points out, there isn't enough of a fanbase for System Shock to be a AAA game:
If you spend fifty million dollars making System Shock then you’ll never get a return on your investment. This game is only viable as a low / mid budget title, and Nightdive has made it clear they’re not interested in making that sort of game, even if they somehow got another infusion of cash.
So the only hope was the modest budget title which these guys promised they were going to do, and then they essentially betrayed the backers.
This is useful information due to the Follow/Unfollow habit of many follower seeking users.
I don't use IG and I still don't understand. Could you explain this?
Apps that help people figure out if their followers follow them
Nothing of value of was lost.
Here's an old TAL segment about him meeting the love of his life (at the time):
https://www.thisamericanlife.o...