I don't consider it unethical. For example if my father dies and I inherit his house where I grew up, he grew up, his father grew up and his grandfather built. That house has a lot of sentimental value in it. I have settled down very far from there. What am I supposed to do? Throw away the family legacy or uproot my entire life?

I think as long as I don't rent it out it's acceptable to own it. It's just extra cost for me to keep something of sentimental value in the family. I'd even be okay with paying extra tax on it considering I think every house you own that you don't live in should be taxed extra.

You need to have optional areas to reward exploration, but that's not the equivalent of "the whole game is optional". Even BotW where 99% of the game is completely optional you and everyone else still have to complete the following steps: activate the first tower, clear 4 shrines, talk to the king, kill Ganon. Minecraft for example is an "everything is optional" game and plenty of people would argue it's less of a game and more of a pure sandbox because you have to set your own goals and do your own thing and you're done when you don't feel like playing anymore. You can't "finish" Minecraft.

A game designer will always need to create some mandatory parts if they want the game to have an end state beyond "you died". Mandatory parts don't invalidate exploration except when "everything" is mandatory.

Technically life is also optional, just throw a toaster in the tub and get it over with.

But it's kind of a moot point to make because most of us still feel like we have some goal in life that we aspire towards. Similarly most games also have a goal and if you want to reach that defined ending then there are certain parts of the game that you have to complete, hence them being mandatory. When it comes to bosses like the Nameless king beating him isn't a requirement to finishing the game (compare to the soul of cinder whom you have to beat to get the endings), thus the boss is not mandatory and is instead optional.

Mutations are also good, see evolution.

Yeah, it's not about monetization. I think for content creators the biggest limiting factor is the user base. If you make a video but nobody sees it then what's the point of making a video? You want people watching your creations and the more users a site has the more likely you're going to have people watching your video. So a real suggestion would be something like video visibility which is kind of a hit or miss on Youtube since the magical Youtube algorithm pretty much throws only clickbait.

Alternatively if he had an actual platform to campaign on instead of shitting on Biden he wouldn't be having an issue.

Not the other guy but IMO it's pretty simple. Academia is for the pursuit of knowledge, you learn and the you contribute. That may coincide with making money and running a business but it does not have to. If you want to make money and run a business that's what vocational studies should be, you learn a trade for the purpose of "being successful in the outside world". The issue with society today is that we've come to glorify higher education and view vocations as some kind of negative. Academia in a modern society should stay focused on the pursuit of knowledge not on the pursuit of churning out degrees to make certain jobs look more legitimate than other jobs. Pursuit of money and running a business should be territory of vocational schools.

There is no pursuit of knowledge in becoming a Youtuber or a Twitch streamer, so it should be taught as a vocation and not as a part of academia.

Right. Even if we assume that's the case it only explains one guy getting a harsh sentence. It doesn't explain the guy with a way harsher crime not getting a harsh sentence.

Think of it this way. If the other guy had robbed the bank empty, just for the sake of the argument he stole 3 billion, and he didn't turn himself out do you think he should've gotten 40 months?

I think it also depends on where you are in life. Way back when I was single, living along and with little to no responsibilities doing 40 hours wasn't an issue. I would wake up at 6, hit the gym, do 8 hours of work, pickup takeaway, eat and then I pretty much have the rest of the day free (minus the occasional chore).

I lived close to work so daily commute time was 1 hour, gym and takeaway places were on the route. Add in 1 hour in the gym and after work, commute and gym I still had 6 hours of free time with 8 hours of sleep.

Now I do 32 hours a week and I don't commute, but I have a family. Even with reduced workload I get 2-3 hours of personal time. ~1 hour comes from reduced workload and 1 hour comes from less sleep and the last hour comes from not hitting the gym. If I lived like I used to I'd have no free time and I'd have to make even more compromises about my time just to have some personal time. And let's face it, working remotely means I definitely don't spend the entire 6 or 6.5 hours on work. I have so many other responsibilities that doing less work is absolutely having an impact on my life and well-being.

I can't fathom how people with families can do full 40 hours and find time to spend with their kids and find time to for self. I think they probably don't find all that time. I think they're compromising where they can and that mostly happens with themselves and their children, work is not compromised.

Ironically I've mostly stopped playing PvP games because matchmaking, at least for me, has turned PvP into single player with very sophisticated bots and a random outcome. Really think about it, hypothetically if someone made an AI model where the input data is players playing the game and then used that model to direct bots in your match without your knowledge could you even tell the difference? I grew up with community servers and as someone coming from that era the matchmaking process feels like it is missing human connection. You're not going to make friends there and half the players will treat you inhumanely anyway because it's not like they're going to see you again.

Since matchmaking is me getting matched with X random people who I'm never going to see again I might as well be playing against the computer and if I'm already going to do that I might as well get a more curated experience.

I think diamonds get a bad rep because of shitty companies like De Beers who artificially pump up the price of diamonds. I don't think anyone would have an issue with diamonds if their price range was comparable to amethyst and made ethically.

I don't know, there's plenty of anti-Valve rhetoric on Lemmy. Plenty of people try to spin it as Valve having a low employee count because they have a lot of contractors. One guy was making a point that Valve employee count is much lower because they buy in AMD GPUs for the Steam Deck... As if Valve should buy chip manufacturing plants and design and manufacture their own GPUs.

Even here somewhere below (or maybe up later) in this thread someone said

Also, a company can pretend to have 10 employees if it instead hires 1000 contractors to do the actual work.

Which is an argument, if you can prove Valve is buying in 10 times the amount of contractors as they have employees for positions that should go to full-time employees. But I very much doubt such information exists.

Well yeah, because dedicated DACs have a tangible benefit of better audio. If you want better audio you need to buy a quality DAC and quality cans.

I also used to think it's dumb because who cares as long as you can hear. But then I built a new PC and I don't know if it was a faulty mobo or just unlucky setup but the internal DAC started picking up static. So I got an external DAC and what I noticed was that the audio sounded clearer and I could hear things in the sound that I couldn't hear before. It was magical, it's like someone added new layers into my favorite songs. I had taken the audio crack.

I pretty quickly gave away my DAC along with my audio technicas because I could feel the urge. I needed another hit. I needed more. I got this knawing itch and I knew I had to get out before the addiction completely took over. Now I live in static because I do not dare to touch the sun again.

Soundblasters may be shit but the hardware they're supposed to sell is legit, it has a tangible benefit to whomever can tell the difference. But with AI, what is the tangible benefit that you couldn't get by getting a better GPU?

Because the biggest goal for Linux gaming is to get people gaming on Linux. You and me might not care that Sony games won't run on Linux but there are people who want to play Sony games and they will either switch back to windows or not even try Linux. If we want Linux to grow we can't just dismiss issues simply because they're not an issue to us, dismissing issues others have is how we will have the year of the Linux for the next 10 years.

Support is kind of a catch 22. Companies have very little reason to support Linux because their customers don't use Linux, but their customers don't use Linux because companies don't support Linux.

And that's where Proton comes in to solve the catch. Proton is just a stepping stone for wider Linux adoption. The more people we get on Linux the more companies have to support Linux the less users need to depend on Proton.

I agree that native support is the way to go, but we're nowhere near having the user base to even justify native support.

The problem isn't that the game took you somewhere interesting. The problem is that the game completely forgoes any geographical consistency by having you take an elevator at the top of an windmill that goes up and you exit inside a lava crater. The brown village with the brown swamp and brown catacombs in DS3 may look visually less interesting but they're at least geographically consistent.

And that example in DS2 isn't the only one, it's just the most blatant one. It's also a significant difference DS2 has over other DS1 and onward titles. Other From titles try to keep the geography of locations consistent. DS3 is an excellent example of that because it doesn't matter what area you're in, if you look into the distance and see something of interest in the distance you can be 99% sure it's a different area you will visit. For instance if I'm not misremembering I'm sure you can see irithyll from the undead settlement. In DS2 if you see something in the distance it might be an area you'll visit but it also might be just something in the distance. For example in the Iron Keep (the lava castle) if you get to the boss area you can see a temple or a village or something of the sorts in the distance, I don't really remember what was in the distance because you never get to visit it anyway. And that's assuming there is something to see in the distance, a lot of the areas in DS2 you can't even see into the distance.

The ability to recognize your surroundings is what made DS1 world interesting. I still have a fond memory from looking into the distance in the Tomb of Giants and recognizing Lost Izalith. I have similar memories for DS3, Sekiro and Elden Ring. I don't have such memories for DS2.

Total votes don't count, if they did Trump would've never been president. Losing tens of thousands of voters literally might not matter if they're all in blue states.

You call your partner a pedo and and break up.

My point was that if you had to have someone shooting at you would you rather they shot 22lr or 223? Shooting any live round at a target you don't actually want to injure or kill is stupid, but if you had to you'd want to use the smallest possible bullet to minimize the damage.

Clearly you haven't been pumped up on adrenaline. It can absolutely give you the confidence to act like he did.

And don't you think it's a bit contradictory to not have the gusto to throw your fist in the air after being shot but being stone cold calm before getting shot? If it was planned Trump would've known he's going to get shot at and like the coward he is he wouldn't have just stared at the shooter.

Also we don't know the cartridge of the weapon but if the weapon used 556 or 223, then it's very unlikely it was staged because those would shred Trump if they actually hit him. If it was 9mm or 22 it would be more believable, but even then would you really risk killing the candidate just to prop up votes? He didn't seem to be wearing a BP vest so even smaller rounds would have been life threatening.

I very much doubt it was staged or false flag or anything of the sorts. It just doesn't make sense to me. Trump should get an Oscar if it was planned that way.