Brazil has a lot of small, very small, ISPs. There was a law some time back that boosted the market for smaller ISPs. On my street I have a small ISP that only runs cables and internet to a portion of my neighborhood. However, those smaller ISPs are usually buying their connection from the few giant companies in the business and redistributing it through their own means. Crazy part though: often they have better prices and support when compared to the giant ISPs they're buying their internet access from.

It's not what I'm saying either. I don't know where you found any such claims in my comment. All I said is that games are supposed to be games, and failing is supposed to be part of games. You can fail even in a chill game like Stardew Valley, and you probably will on your first playthrough if you don't look anything up. The game won't game over because of it, but you will spend your entire second year suffering and trying to fix the mistakes you made in your first year. I can't remember a single game I played where failing was not something that could happen that felt better because of it. Case in point: I was playing Jusant and was interested in the game, until I realized I couldn't truly fail in that game, and all of the mechanics in place that looked like they were game mechanics, were actually just smoke and mirrors.

I can understand why most of the titles made it onto the list, but I can't agree at all with the order of the list. The order was clearly made by some people who are heavily nostalgic towards older games. I've played Dragon Age Origins and The Witcher 3, and there's not even a question in my mind that DAO is the better RPG out of the two. And, to me, also the better game (I can't even understand how people find that the hours of cutscenes right in the beginning of TW3 is somehow fine). And don't get me wrong, I love Dark Souls, but DS can't be classified as a pc rpg unless you're tripping. It's an action game with rpg elements. I've also played Neverwinter Nights 1 and 2, and those games are not that good if you remove your nostalgia glasses. And I played both of those when I was a kid, so you can't tell me it's because I didn't experience them in their time period. The writers of this list seem to love clunkyness and perceived potential above all else. The clunkier a game, the better. As seen on that high of an evaluation of Kingmaker, another game I played, can see as cool, but can't bring myself to truly respect when they made the stupid decision to make combat spells like web last for their real 10 minutes time even after combat has ended, so that I had to stare at my screen for 10 minutes while my stupid dwarf failed check after check to get out of the web, and I had to actually wait 10 whole minutes for the spell to end. As an actual DM for TRPGs for 20+ years, taking rules from tabletop rpgs and porting them to videogames 1:1 just shows a lacking understanding of game design. A game with such an obvious flaw makes no sense to be placed that high into the list.

It's not a claim I made though. It got that award from the voting public by the golden joystick. And souls are definitely no longer niche, Elden Ring success is an obvious clue, but the fact that most AA or AAA action games with a melee weapon from the last 5 years implements some mechanics from souls games is another huge indication of the mass appeal and impact dark souls has had on gaming culture.

That's a mentality that was the norm back in 2010, and one of the reasons the og dark souls got called a "very hard game". It wasn't that hard of a game, it was just a game that let you die as many times as mistakes you made, and it's both objectively a better game for it, while also being hugely influential to the industry on this particular matter. To the point that it has been given the title and award of "ultimate game of all times". Deserved for reminding that games are supposed to be games, and failing is 100% supposed to be part of it.

There's no suggestion. There is currently no way a search engine can be a viable modern business model and a good tool at the same time. It could potentially be a good business model and a decent tool even with ads, but only in a world where we accept that things can't grow forever.

My boss once asked me to take a look at her computer that was super slow and barely functional, and the thing that surprised me the most was that she had been running Chrome without any adblock since ever, and when I asked her about adblock, she answered: "adwhat?". Mind you that she's still a millennial, and only a few years older than me.

It's not as bad as people here are making it out to be. It actually might even be an improvement. It's only for the all apps tab, and it organizes apps by their purpose, and you don't have to click the folder to expand it and then click the icon, as you can just click the icon and it will launch it. I've been using Windows 11 since it came out, and the all apps tab is something I have barely ever used. All my important stuff is neatly organized in one single tab of my home star menu screen, and anything that is not there I'll just look it up with search.

Let's not make them a business. Search Engines are fundamental core services for the modern globalized and connected world. It's just like your post-office service. Make it an internationally owned and funded non-profit organization with open-source and the goal of enabling the unrestricted sharing of knowledge over the internet.