hing like that now do ya?
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or if you really don't understand. If you don't understand I'd be happy to elaborate.
Knightfox
joined 2 years ago
Weird, you'd think that Google would give them more options than that and allow them to tailor their ads to their audience. I guess this is how google puts forth the minimum effort for the maximum profit. Thanks for the insight.
Oh I totally agree. I guess the rest of my comment was about how they're trying to make it an age thing and it's the worst marketing for him.
Well it shouldn't be at a loss. As the person I responded to pointed out, Epic had a lower fee than Steam so the developer can sell on Epic for less than they would on Steam and make the same amount of money.
Doing so wouldn't be at a loss, but it wouldn't make as much profit as possible.
If the developers did choose to sell on Epic for less than it would bolster the Epic store and potentially lead to more people moving to Epic.
If Steam's fee is 30% and Epic's is 15% the developer could sell on Steam for $70 and make $49 and they could sell on Epic for $60 to make $51. That's a 4% increase in profits.
If the Epic store takes off and a large enough user base switches they could maybe increase the Epic price to $62.5 which would result in an additional 4% increase in profits.
Epic's deal is that they're offering a lower rate, but the developers aren't sharing the benefits of that to help Epic grow. If they did the long term profits would likely exceed the short term.
I'd really like for the Democrats to stop trying to make Biden appear young. Yeah, I would like a younger president, yeah I like that Biden can ride a bike or go for a walk, but these don't make him look younger to me and I didn't vote for him because I thought he was younger and super fit.
I wish the Biden team would lean into the memes, I feel like that's when he's been most popular. Appropriating the Let's go Brandon memes, appropriating the "I did that stickers/meme," leaning into the Dark/Dank Brandon memes, and back when he was VP leaning into the Uncle Joe vibe.
Fucking embrace that the dude is old and make him America's great grandpa. Have him walk out onto a Mr. Rogers lookalike set in a red cardigan to talk about policy. Have him do a fireside address with a blanket and a coffee. Have him throw on the sunglasses and crack the goofy smile before going to get ice cream with a podcaster.
Hell, get the people who made this video to help on Biden's public image.
I'd really like to know what the level of input creators have over the ads that appear in their videos is. It feels like some videos are just whatever Google throws out there while some videos seem to have no ads and finally some seem to have very limited ads.
Is there some sort of dial that the creator has behind the scenes that determines how shitty the ads for their video are?
Ads on YouTube used to not be so bad, a 5 second ad that was so unintrusive that I'd just let it play, a 15 second with a 3 second skip, and it also didn't feel like the same quantity of ads.
Before an ad would roll at the beginning of the video and I'd likely quickly skip it. If the video was fairly long there might be an extra ad in the middle. Sometimes the creator might also have an embedded ad, but I generally don't mind those.
Now it's a double 15 second ad at the beginning, only the first one is skippable. Then there is another double ad every 15 minutes, plus the embedded creator ad, and if you make it to the end of the video there is an end of video double ad before it auto plays to the start of the next video and next set of double ads.
Make the ads short and unintrusive or make them long, skippable, but rare. I hate having to constantly tab out to go click the skip button every few minutes.
When the YouTube ad blocker ban started I was on chrome with uBlock and it seemed to be refreshing the block even with uBlock. I thought to myself, "Hey let's try it with the ads, I'll whitelist YouTube and support the content creators." After about 3 days I said fuck it, dropped Chrome and updated uBlock again; I haven't seen an ad since.
If the developer chooses to do so themselves then it's likely ok, but forcing the developer to do so likely violates some sort of law.
I imagine that when Epic instituted it's lower percentage they hoped that developers would sell exclusively on their platform for higher profits. Instead the developers decided to sell on both platforms and just make a larger percentage on the Epic sales. From the developer perspective it would have been wise in the long run to lower prices so that Epic could grow, but that hurts their short term profits and also stymied Epic's potential.
If Epic's store grew to truly rival Steam more developers might have jumped ship, but to do so prematurely would be losing a large portion of the potential customers.
Ultimately Epic had to develop a full Steam clone quickly while all Steam had to do was not suck for the end user.
1.) Presented with sources, definitions, and a fairly detailed description of war crimes.
2.) Presented with third party sources about claims.
3.) Clearly told that the person they are arguing with doesn't support the IDF
4.) Uses strawman attacks on the person they are arguing with
5.) Provides no real source, argument, or rebutall
6.) Says they refuted my argument
7.) Puts words in my mouth
8.) Calls me a genocide apologist when I clearly am not
You're clearly a troll and I'm done feeding you
It absolutely 100% is.
The Geneva Convention disagrees: "Geneva Convention IV: Article 28 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides: 'The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.'"
"Additional Protocol I: Article 51(7) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides: The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations"
Which Israel doesn’t do either, not even close
That's not true, obviously Israel is using the principal of proportionality or else they would have just leveled the entire place. Whether this constitutes a war crime would be if their level of response was appropriate enough, that's why people say it "may" constitute a war crime. The truth is that this is a subjective argument that would need to be determined in an international court of law to be certain of.
Which we only have the word of a notoriously dishonest government that there always is
Amnesty International reported the same in 2014 (https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/05/gaza-palestinians-tortured-summarily-killed-by-hamas-forces-during-2014-conflict/) and the Palestinian Health Ministry in 2009 (www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3668018,00.html).
You mean like when Israel told Palestinians to go somewhere and then bombed them as they complied?
Maybe you should actually check the news, Hamas leadership has been telling it's people to stay and, while you don't believe the IDF, they have satellite and surveillance footage of vehicles and barricades to block travel in Gaza. Also, reporters inside of Gaza are reporting that Hamas is shooting evacuating people.
https://www.ynetnews.com/article/ryjyna7qa
You can try all the whataboutism you’d like to excuse the atrocities of the apartheid regime but, apart from the fact that the atrocities of Hamas doesn’t justify any of those of Israel, most of the time the IDF have done the same thing (including for example using human shields) or something even worse.
I've not tried to excuse any atrocities, I'm clearly pointing out that the term "War Crime" has a specific meaning of which you have twice incorrectly used. Throughout our discussions I have used a number of reasonable sources and references. It funny you accuse me of an argument I haven't made and for using whataboutisms, but the only whataboutisms have come from your own post. I don't like what the IDF is doing either, but you can't call things war crimes that would literally take a prolonged international league case to determine (principle of proportionality). Likewise when something is very clearly defined as a war crime, you can't say that it isn't (perfidy). Also, it's a really poor argument to say that sources (albeit biased) are illegitimate because they came from Israel (I showed that an outside entity and the Palestinian Health Ministry backed up the IDFs claims a decade earlier).
This response is the equivalent of a child saying nuh uh and walking off. Also, no one said that it did excuse the war crimes committed by the IDF. The problem I have is that you're clearly misrepresenting Hamas as innocent.
Oddly enough it's not a war crime to attack a military target that is using a civilian population as cover. The military action has to use the principle of proportionality to limit risks to civilians, but doesn't ban the attack. Attacking such a site would only be a war crime if there is no valid military target.
The use of a civilian population as soft cover (as in not actively being human shields, but not getting out of the way) could be a war crime depending on the amount of obfuscation the hiding party is using. In the instance of Hamas they built their bases directly under hospitals so I'd say that meets the bar for war crimes.
Also, the current news is that Hamas is blocking evacuations from this region. So that moves it from soft human shields to forced human shields.
Sure, but the idea of fostering a mutually beneficial preferential relationship between two companies is far from new. I'm not saying that the developer has to take a loss, but they could decrease the sell price on Epic while still making more money than on Steam, GOG, or Humble Bundle. If doing so causes more people to switch to Epic it also means they'll make more money in the long term and in the short term.
I'd argue that the statement that Epic is just as much a customer as the consumer isn't really true. Epic as a storefront is different from Gamestop as a store front. Gamestop buys the product at a given price and then marks it up to make profit, Epic provides fulfillment and gets paid a percentage of the sale. Epic isn't a customer in that sense because they aren't buying and reselling the product.
Yeah, the developers can say fuck it and not help out Epic, but it just furthers the limited monopoly that Steam is. They can't complain that Steam takes too big of a cut and then make businesses decisions that are counter to that complaint. It's like complaining about Reddit but choosing to stay there.
I would agree that Epic is a customer in the sense that they are paying for exclusivity, but I think that contract should also include a reduced sale price in it.
EX: Epic pays the developer X dollars so that the first week of the release it's sold at -Y% of the MSRP exclusively on Epic. After that they can sell it on other storefronts for the MSRP for Z months (with no sales) or they have to refund the X dollars.