After that, he says that energetic stellar-sized microwaves could also be the cause, though this is unlikely since microwaves typically are not stellar-sized and they do not float in space [citation needed].
I don't know why but that [citation needed] caught me so off guard and made me laugh far too much
(It has been funny watching some of my coworkers learn a new coding technique and finding it to be so cool that they apply it everywhere regardless of whether it fits or not while I think to myself, “Ah, I remember when I went through that phase as a teenager!”)
I'm not a programmer (although suggestions on a language to start learning with - with no project in mind - would be welcome!), but I've found similar things with my old musical projects. I look back some old project files and see that I used various techniques all the time that I don't necessarily use nowadays. Sometimes, I think I probably should use them more than I do now, but I definitely overused them back then when I first discovered them.
I guess it's just exciting when you learn something and it opens up a bunch of possibilities for you!
His brain's been rotted from all the interacting with 14-year-olds and bots on Twitter.
He's always seemed unlikeable to me, but I do wonder how different a person he'd be if he'd never developed his Twitter addiction. I think he's very perceptibly become more narcissistic and shifted his personality to try to appeal to his Twitter worshippers.
Well then three seasons would have been appropriate!
I was just speaking in a broad sense; it'd be great - especially with streaming not needing to fit things into any kind of schedule - if we could have more shows that just take the amount of time they need to tell their story, and then finish.
I think two seasons is plenty if they only have two seasons' worth of story to tell. I think trying to aim for arbitrary episode/season counts harms storytelling in general.
I reckon the number of sales of the game was pretty irrelevant to them. They lived off investor money for years, and the fact that they released something makes it rather difficult for them to be sued for fraud. I suspect that's why they never took pre-orders, too - it makes it more difficult for any "false advertisement" class action suits to get any traction if they weren't accepting any money.
Here's something that isn't that widely known outside of developers/publishers: Steam holds any money from the sales of a game until the end of the following month - it makes refunds easier, it gives them time to deal with processing fees, etc. So The Day Before's devs, who said they had to shut the studio because they'd run out of money and couldn't afford to stay open because the game hadn't sold well enough, wouldn't have seen any money from the game until next week anyway. And they'd have known this - this wasn't their first game.
I don't think all adverts are propaganda. For instance, someone in my village has a sign outside their house that says "EGGS FOR SALE" - that is 100% an advert, but I'm not sure you could convince me it's propaganda.
I agree that there's a lot of overlap between advertising and corporate propaganda, but they're definitely different things.
Unfortunately, I doubt it'll have much of an impact. Most of the properties/studios Embracer owns aren't popular enough to get people to make noise about it. And people don't tend to see the bigger picture - especially when these stories about studio closures are trickling out rather than all happening at once. I'm sure there'll be a lot of talk about it if something happens to do with Gearbox/Borderlands or The Lord Of The Rings, or if multiple studios all get shuttered at once, but other than that, I expect it'll just be small stories that continue to fly under the radar.
And regulators don't seem to care about video games unless people make noise. They get involved in things like loot box regulations or Microsoft acquiring Activision because those are big deals that almost everyone in the gaming sphere has an opinion on. But unfortunately, I don't see Piranha Bytes having issues or being closed getting enough attention for anything to change.
You're right about osu! Although it's probably one of the few competitive games where there's no gameplay interaction between players - if another player is cheating, it hurts the overall competitiveness, of course, but it doesn't directly affect your gameplay experience.
It's not like playing a shooter where someone has an aimbot and wallhacks, or a racing game where someone can ram you off the track without slowing themselves down - those things directly ruin your gameplay experience as well as obviously hurting the competitive integrity. I don't think those kinds of games would work at all if they were open-source and without anti-cheat unless there was strict moderation and likely whitelisting in place for servers.
Is open-source compatible with competitive games? As much as I love open-source in general, I feel like cheating would be a serious problem if the source code is available for everyone. That's not really an issue in single-player or co-operative games (outside of cheating leaderboard positions) but it would absolutely cause problems in a PvP game.
As a non-American:
I feel like hyper-capitalism and America's borderline corporatocracy is responsible for this. So many Americans feel like they're being lied or taken advantage of in order for corporations to profit.
The suspicions about "Big Pharma", for instance, almost make sense to me if I try to consider it from an American perspective. Healthcare is insanely expensive there, and being told you need to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars "for your own good" is enough to make anyone suspicious. Especially when you see men posting their itemised hospital bills online where they were billed $300 for "women's sanitary products" - it's very clear these companies and healthcare providers are willing to be dishonest in order to profit. So American people start to distrust the entire industry/field.
Of course, when you look at it from a global perspective, or especially from a perspective of a country with nationalised healthcare where the same profit motives don't exist, it seems absurd. Just because the American companies are scummy doesn't mean the science behind medicine is wrong or a lie.
And it's the same across so many other industries. American companies take advantage of consumers, consumers start to distrust them. American people have been conditioned to distrust or be sceptical of so many things at this point that a lot of people feel like their own judgement is the only thing they can trust. Of course, not everyone has the critical thinking skills for that to actually be true, nor does everyone have the education in every single area for it to be true. And for those people with weaker critical thinking skills, having some charlatan come along and say, "well we all know you can't trust X, Y and Z, so what if A is a lie as well? And trust me, you can trust B" makes them think, "oh wow, they're right about not being able to trust X, Y and Z, maybe they're right about A and B too".
And so your Donald Trumps, your Alex Jones, etc, gain power and influence, and the people who follow them feel smart because they can "see through the systemic lies". It doesn't matter that half of what they say isn't provably true because (to their followers, at least) it could be true.
So I don't think it's just American exceptionalism that's responsible. I think the whole system's so broken that it's conditioned people to be sceptical and distrustful about everything, and to try to take advantage of the broken system when they can.
I'm kind of surprised Apple is willing to fragment things so much just to avoid these consumer-friendly rulings as much as they can. Obviously it's profit-driven - I get that - but it seems to go against their branding a little, where the Apple ecosystem is typically very simple to use and has parity across devices.