We all know Dutch isn't real, it's a prank played by the Dutch people on the rest of the world.

The curved edges were the precursor tech to having a foldable screen. No matter what is said about the Apple vs. Samsung debate, Samsung is still the one responsible for the praises on Apple's screens. They have tried with other manufacturers and providers but can't escape the fact that Samsung is still the major leader on displays as they dump a shit ton of money on R&D on all LED screen technologies, specially manufacturing at scale. If you want high end screens, you just go with Samsung, period. The alternatives are constantly playing catch up with them and they are actually experimenting and trying to come up with new and original stuff. LG and Sharp are also really good, but their screens aren't as premium as Apple wants them to be, though they are more affordable.

For every AirPower there's a $999 ProStand. Apple is just a greedy company, like everyone else in tech. They are just more picky on the bullshit they sell, but they still sell bullshit.

When you know what ancient people did with sinew, it's not that obtuse. We have used bones, cartilage and sinews of animals we killed for a really looooooong time. It comes as a natural thought when you see that when those parts are boiled they become sticky and then harden as they dry. Not a really hard logical leap to make. Just somewhat morbid.

As someone with the opposite problem, too formal and not very good at casual writing. Truth is, formal writing is robotic and in today's context it is regarded as awkward except in a few places. Most of the samples online that the bots are trained with are overly formal examples. 99% of cover letters are never published online, so that's an area they're lacking. What they have access to is the awfully generic slop that's impersonal and meant to sell online workshops about writing cover letters.

There's a very difficult task in making formal writing feel natural and warm. I would advice instead to aim for transparency. A cover letter is supposed to highlight a match between your skills and personality, with the company role's needs and work culture. It's not a cold sales pitch, you must show that you did your due diligence about getting to know the place before applying for the job. As long as it sounds like the genuine you talking, not a façade, it doesn't has to be too formal, just keep the content and vocabulary professional. How you would talk in the workspace with a coworker that you don't know too well yet. A cover letter is more like corporate flirting than lawyer speak.

As for material, read the basic common sense guides online, but, and it is a big but. Also read a lot in general, specially in English as it isn't your first language. Unlike LLMs humans are actually intelligent and we can use experiences from other contexts, and good writing in general shares common principles across all genres. Even if every genre has specificities, they're usually an addendum or exception of general good writing. Variety is the spice of life.

Yeah, who would go to the internet and infringe copyright and trademark laws? That has never happened before.

/s

But for real. It's a viral campaign for something but definitely not for a video game. Look at deadlock, that's how valve does marketing now. They don't even need ads or webpages anymore.

It's incredible how supporting Israel was about "securing an ally in the region to avoid another major armed conflict in the middle east", and has now turned into Israel dragging the US into another major conflict in the middle east. It's either US foreign policy officials didn't learn anything from the past dozen conflicts or they literally want this to happen every time.

They're starting to get stale though. Sometimes yes, there will be a 15+ years old thread that's still relevant, but there will also be so many cases that the latest post is 2+ years old and no longer applicable or outdated.

Most tolerable is far more accurate.

If you truly break it down, you'll notice that AAA only actually makes two or three games, open world third person action RPG with parkour, open world shooter with looting and crafting, and live-service coop/competitive shooter with loot boxes. Every iteration of these same ideas are just varnishing the same bored gameplay concepts over and over with different coats of theming and slightly different stories. I only ever find original and stimulating gameplay on indie projects and the occasional small studio. They're the only ones actually experimenting with innovative game design and varied concepts.

AAA games don't have a production quality or even a development time problem. They have a far more existential one. A gameplay focus problem. These are games made with profit as first priority, not fun. They have confused engagement and addiction with gameplay quality. Live services poisoned their design language. This is why they want more, faster, at higher budgets. The fallacy is that more, faster, more graphically demanding, will magically make them all the money.

I want less games, with lower budgets, that take longer to make, have less graphic and animation fidelity, that pay better to their devs to do their job well. And I mean it.

The video games market is already overflowed for its size, yet somehow these companies are inflating their budgets like balloons instead and charging ever more and more for shittier games that somehow cost more to make. This isn't sustainable. AI won't fix any of these issues.

I will repeat, and I can't stress enough with this reiteration, fuck Ubisoft.

“Do you really need to go to the hospital for this? I mean, we are still in the middle of the meeting, can't the baby like…wait, or something”

Always keep your axes labeled guys, how else would you know which one to chop an axis with?

It's already being called the lowest price in a decade. Technically true, but honestly disingenuous since the massive price bump to over €100 was an anomaly caused by the pandemic that swept the entire industry, not just this one publisher. Also drivel to generate engagement. Just like this post, here we are discussing it, despite the fact that it is misleading and poor characterization of the entire picture.

Do you know how much money disappeared overnight because of this?

I do know, none. Not a single cent disappeared. Because stocks aren't liquidity. That money was never there in the first place. Some paid some money to get those stocks, that money was real and it entered the company's liquidity. Then they spent it on something. Those stocks are but the promise of paying some dividends, some time in the future or giving some power inside the company. Their virtual fluctuations of price over time are nothing but smoke and mirrors, people exchanging virtual titles over those rights like little kids trading collectible cards. Some people cashed out for a low price (that was already grossly overinflated from the pandemic days, so they probably still made bank) and it pushed an already correcting stock to accelerate for today. That money didn't come from the company, it was exchanged entirely by third parties, public traders. Ubisoft didn't participate at all in whatever pushed the price drop. No matter how much I want it to, Ubisoft is not in any more danger today than it was in yesterday. They are still filthy rich, if anything the biggest danger for this is that it gives them lee way to layoff another group of underpaid developers or gut another studio to appease the stockholders. Who are already in a frenzy for blood because Outlaws didn't make all the money.

If you were to compare Ubisoft today to Ubisoft 2 years ago, you would see they dropped nearly 93%. Dear golly, how is this poor boutique family company in business after such a massive loss? /s

They do but it's not that much more significant than overall ad revenue. Having a Patreon or a merch store will probably outperform 10 fold anything that YouTube pays from both ads and premium views combined.

We stopped developing quality self-hosted forums and somehow now everyone is all over live chats. Chat is the worse form of communication to create permanent records of support issues. It's the flipside of Wiki's problems. They use hidden wikis to host discussion of wikipedia articles, moderation and other topics and the thing is a nightmare because it is not suited for conversation. FOSS development needs something that can do both. Live group chat for general discussion, with a static discussion forum for single issues, and a wiki where it can all be archived as structured articles. There's currently nothing popular that fills the bill.

They all fall for turning KPIs into goals. When KPI become targets, they stop being KPIs. They often forget that KPIs are supposed to be used for informing the evaluation of desired outcomes, they aren't outcomes on themselves. At most they could be activitie's outputs. There are also many more stats and information that can feed the evaluation of outcomes that aren't KPIs, and qualitative evaluations are most definitely a must.

Percentages are also misleading. The timeframe will always stretch the percentage. Sure, a 20% drop on the same day is significant, but it still says absolutely nothing about the overall situation, nor why it happened. It is a significantly smaller drop when compared to their year long performance, and a significantly larger loss if only the last month is taken into account. There's research on this, observing day to day changes on stock prices to describe a company is just as effective as describing people's personalities through astrology. It's bullshit.