I'm gonna guess you're a libertarian on the basis that you ignore the actual reasons things happen, as described in the summary in the article, to jump immediately to an oversimplified free market based explanation.
The great thing is I could be completely misjudging you. It's fun to have a hypothesis.
Look, gamers(as a whole) have no history of actually doing anything to reign in companies that abuse. The AAA companies' executives are familiar with this, and the sense of entitlement that causes gamers to demand things for petty reasons and then given in without a fight.
I'm in year 6 of a personal EA/Ubissoft/Activision boycott, and I feel like anyone who cares about getting decent treatment as customers should be too. Unfortunately, they clearly don't need my money, and are doing fine. It's just one of those cases where successful marketing clearly beats out delivering a decent product.
This is fundamentally what GamerGate is too, petty, entitled people making unreasonable demands, and then doing nothing self-sacrificing to make any meaningful changes.
Oh, really? Lets see your evidence that anyone has made any meaningful move in that regard.
The list of gamergate "accomplishments" I'm familiar with are: 1. Harassing Zoe Quinn for invented crimes 2. Getting Gawker media ads pulled for calling them on the bullshit #1. 3. Harassing Anita Sarkeesian for... criticizing video games 4. Publishing a "gamers bill of rights" that was laughably even worse ethical standards than the games journalism industry already uses, including "never giving a negative score". 5. Spending a hell of a lot of time defending #1 and #3 as not real or secondary.
Nah, the embargo agreements are perpetually tied to the right to review the next release early. Violate the terms? Well so much for getting any trailers on your site, assholes.
They don't have the ability to not be sexist douchebags, and they don't have any history of making attempts at meaningful changes to videogame journalism.
Seriously, what do they think they can gain from not letting a government control it's own name?
It's not like Iran is going to stop existing on the Internet even if they did take them. Peering through less hostile neighbors wouldn't just stop. The only leverage this would really give the US government is the ability to set up "kimjongisapoopyhead.nk".
Of course, the problems with this line of reasoning, about PR disasters from breaking promises are: A. No one, not one major media organization, has a history of challenging companies on keeping promises B. They can abuse the data and call it non-abuse. C. Price and features are the driving motivators in the car purchase market, making "company PR" a pretty low concern, and even in that avenue, safety tends to matter more for PR than promise keeping. and D. Corporate promises last only as long as there's not more profit to be made from breaking them, no matter how big the cost is.
Believe it or not, the fundamental premise of relativity(not to mislead here: it was understood as part of conventional physics far before that), that all motion is relative to a frame of reference is not well understood by the public at large.
Even people who graduated high school, and took basic physics classes might not have been directly exposed to the notion or internalized it. To a lot of people speed is an inherent characteristic of objects. Either you're going fast or you're not.
And scientists frequently say the earth is going fast.
Yes, but 1C is harder, and they're trying to balance competing interests.
And, also, if you object to that meta-analysis, I expect you to submit, with sources as reliable as those cited in the linked document alternate interpretations, give your crowds' trivially demonstrated over-eagerness to dismiss reality for a variety of almost farcial reasoning.
If it's sold at cost, to the people who are using the facility, it's really not that amazing.
Honestly, if I'm renting my restaurant out to a wedding party, the fact that I'm only selling my wine to the wedding party is perfectly fine. Selling at cost even makes sense if I got a good enough deal on the party itself.
They allege, and I don't know how rightly, that all of the following are true:
1. Google has received a discounted rate on jet fuel from NASA. 2. This means that Google is underpaying on the lease since they'll get their jet fuel cheap???????
The problem with that logic, which the group acknowledges and, in spite of that, persists is that NASA doesn't actually take a loss on the fuel they sell Google.
Slashdot Mirror
Because you jerks are all still wrong about things.
I'm happy to report I was wrong based on your posting history.
Isn't comment-based presumption fun?
I'm gonna guess you're a libertarian on the basis that you ignore the actual reasons things happen, as described in the summary in the article, to jump immediately to an oversimplified free market based explanation.
The great thing is I could be completely misjudging you. It's fun to have a hypothesis.
Oh look, a post on a sleazy misogyny filled subreddit.
Yep, that's a credible source.
Look, gamers(as a whole) have no history of actually doing anything to reign in companies that abuse. The AAA companies' executives are familiar with this, and the sense of entitlement that causes gamers to demand things for petty reasons and then given in without a fight.
I'm in year 6 of a personal EA/Ubissoft/Activision boycott, and I feel like anyone who cares about getting decent treatment as customers should be too. Unfortunately, they clearly don't need my money, and are doing fine. It's just one of those cases where successful marketing clearly beats out delivering a decent product.
This is fundamentally what GamerGate is too, petty, entitled people making unreasonable demands, and then doing nothing self-sacrificing to make any meaningful changes.
I like that linking evidence is flamebait.
Yeah, I'm bitching about moderation, which is a surefire way to get modded down even more(and it should be, it's petty), but it's still funny to me.
Oh, really? Lets see your evidence that anyone has made any meaningful move in that regard.
The list of gamergate "accomplishments" I'm familiar with are: ... criticizing video games
1. Harassing Zoe Quinn for invented crimes
2. Getting Gawker media ads pulled for calling them on the bullshit #1.
3. Harassing Anita Sarkeesian for
4. Publishing a "gamers bill of rights" that was laughably even worse ethical standards than the games journalism industry already uses, including "never giving a negative score".
5. Spending a hell of a lot of time defending #1 and #3 as not real or secondary.
Link to a single gamergate anything attacking this practice.
Nah, the embargo agreements are perpetually tied to the right to review the next release early. Violate the terms? Well so much for getting any trailers on your site, assholes.
With the big, nefarious, result of having their free game linked on a blog post list of free indie games that the author had heard of.
Sooooooooooooooooooo conflicty.
If that were what actually happened, yeah, that would've been a nice world.
But... see, they say that, then make their attempt at a wikipedia article about gamergate, that they were given special permission to craft without outside interference, from non-members all about zoe quinn.
They don't have the ability to not be sexist douchebags, and they don't have any history of making attempts at meaningful changes to videogame journalism.
An indie developer having sex is a big concern for ethics in game journalism.
We can ignore small problems like this, as long as we tackle that.
Oh, so has china been at war with us since like 1998?
Seriously, what do they think they can gain from not letting a government control it's own name?
It's not like Iran is going to stop existing on the Internet even if they did take them. Peering through less hostile neighbors wouldn't just stop. The only leverage this would really give the US government is the ability to set up "kimjongisapoopyhead.nk".
That's... uh... not how international commerce works.
They are very much "in the USA" as far as the law is concerned.
Yeah, that's one of my big problems also, but I didn't think that was relevant here.
We've received your concerns, and our reply will be arriving on a pink slip shortly.
I too dislike unbridled cynicism.
Of course, the problems with this line of reasoning, about PR disasters from breaking promises are:
A. No one, not one major media organization, has a history of challenging companies on keeping promises
B. They can abuse the data and call it non-abuse.
C. Price and features are the driving motivators in the car purchase market, making "company PR" a pretty low concern, and even in that avenue, safety tends to matter more for PR than promise keeping.
and
D. Corporate promises last only as long as there's not more profit to be made from breaking them, no matter how big the cost is.
Will they take an oath? With they sign in blood? Will they promise their first born if they renege?
A promise from corporations doesn't go very far.
Ha, you can't fool me, they collapsed the jump gate to the Sol system, and the Shivans can't come here.
Believe it or not, the fundamental premise of relativity(not to mislead here: it was understood as part of conventional physics far before that), that all motion is relative to a frame of reference is not well understood by the public at large.
Even people who graduated high school, and took basic physics classes might not have been directly exposed to the notion or internalized it. To a lot of people speed is an inherent characteristic of objects. Either you're going fast or you're not.
And scientists frequently say the earth is going fast.
Yes, but 1C is harder, and they're trying to balance competing interests.
And, also, if you object to that meta-analysis, I expect you to submit, with sources as reliable as those cited in the linked document alternate interpretations, give your crowds' trivially demonstrated over-eagerness to dismiss reality for a variety of almost farcial reasoning.
Did they say it was a no bid lease?
Because that would be actual malfeasance, and I saw no sign of it in either article.
If it's sold at cost, to the people who are using the facility, it's really not that amazing.
Honestly, if I'm renting my restaurant out to a wedding party, the fact that I'm only selling my wine to the wedding party is perfectly fine. Selling at cost even makes sense if I got a good enough deal on the party itself.
They allege, and I don't know how rightly, that all of the following are true:
1. Google has received a discounted rate on jet fuel from NASA.
2. This means that Google is underpaying on the lease since they'll get their jet fuel cheap???????
The problem with that logic, which the group acknowledges and, in spite of that, persists is that NASA doesn't actually take a loss on the fuel they sell Google.