Some fraction of those five million are people who bought the Denuvo-infected PC version.

Shrug… That’s a club I won’t be joining.

Here’s the recent anniversary video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geiTg6Z7w3A

I wish Klei hadn’t sold out to Tencent.

Never heard of EFF

Congratulations. You’re one of today’s lucky ten thousand. :)

but 0 points for being 10 years late on this very easy and obvious decision.

Once you learn about what the EFF does, and read the post, you’ll (hopefully) understand that this decision was neither easy nor obvious.

I don’t own a google or motorola phone, so now what?

Campaign for your favorite phone manufacturer to make a phone with the features required by GrapheneOS, and when they do, make that your next phone.

Or use something other than GrapheneOS.

They recently announced a partnership with Motorola Mobility (a subsidiary of China’s Lenovo) to offer it on a non-Google phone. Is this what you had in mind?

Note that “rather undermines” does not mean “completely negates”. In any case…

30% less range for 60% less cost always makes economic sense.

Be sure to let everyone know when this new mix sells for 60% less than the current mix.

Ethanol does not prematurely dissolve seals and hoses on any car made in the last 30 years,

As far as I can tell, it’s closer to 25 years. Be sure to let everyone with an older car know when you plan to buy them an upgrade.

I get that Americans can’t do simple math,

Lots of assumption and rudeness in your comment. Please learn to be better. Goodbye.

The concern for most people is not the range of a gas tank. It’s about the fact that they’ll have to fill the tank more often, which means paying more often to travel the same distance, which rather undermines the claim of lowering the cost.

The price per mile matters more than the price per gallon.

And then there’s the additional cost of repairs when the ethanol prematurely dissolves your car’s seals and hoses.

id Software, Valve and 3D Realms included their SDKs on the disk. All the way back in the 90’s they gave players the same tools they used to build the game. Any game that descends from Doom, all the way into the Source engine, store their assets in .wad files.

Those were not the first modded games.

In any case, you’ve already made it clear that you disagree. That’s fine, but it doesn’t make your view the defining one.

From the article:

The lawsuit is backed by European consumer movement “Stop Killing Games” (SKG), which was launched in response to “The ​Crew” controversy.

Half-Life is it’s own game,

Yes, as is Counter-Strike.

modified Quake’s engine.

Yes, mod is short for modification.

The distinction you’re drawing seems pretty arbitrary to me. Early mods didn’t have the luxury of engine hooks and data separation designed for the purpose of third-party modding. They were more closely tied to the original game’s internals, and they were harder to make, but they were still mods. Even today, it’s not uncommon for mods to add features to or change behavior in an engine, via loaders or DLLs.

I suppose it’s a matter of one’s perspective.

Counter-Strike was a Half-Life mod.

And Half-Life was essentially a Quake mod. (More extensive than most mods, since the developers were able to modify the Quake source code, but a mod nevertheless.)

Response to your edit:

I am not among those who downvoted, but since you asked, I’ll offer a guess as to why so many people did:

1. The way you phrased your second sentence, it could be interpreted to mean that you consider the story to be inappropriate here. Perhaps some people (especially those who read Lemmy while in a hurry) thought that was what you meant. It could have been made more clear if you had written, “this was reported…”.

2. This story is relevant to people all over the world, while the complaint you received was that it concerns a US company. Those two things are not mutually exclusive. I believe more than a few members of this community, maybe even most, recognize that fact, and find it unacceptable for their news channel to obstruct information that concerns them just because the source happens to be in the US.

   To be clear, the rule here forbids “United States Internal News”. The rule does not forbid “News emerging from the United States”. Since the policies of a major global reference source like Wikipedia are clearly not US internal news, some community members surely recognize that flagging it for removal was inappropriate. I happen to share this view, and this is not an isolated incident.

   Once in the past, I submitted a scientific report, and it was removed here on the grounds that the scientists were in the US. The post was not “United States Internal News” and did not break any of the community’s rules. It was scientific research, without geographic or political boundaries. It was relevant to everyone. And yet it was denied visibility to us, the members here. I found that absurd, and deeply concerning: This community, which positions itself as a global information source, was filtering out information in a way that we have come to expect from state-owned media in authoritarian regimes. And it was presuming to treat scientific research as though it were somehow invalid just because it had been done in the US.

Edit:

In any case, I hope this helps you to understand some likely reasons why your comment received downvotes.

Those of us who have walked in the moderator’s shoes for long enough will come to understand that sometimes it’s the complaint that is misguided, not the target of the complaint, and that broadcasting such complaints (as you did here) gives them an air of validity that they do not deserve.

See that ruin up there? Bleak Falls Barrow.

I considered that the nonprofit organization behind Wikipedia is in the US, but decided that World News is appropriate in this case, since a great deal of the world relies on it, and since its content comes from international contributors. So I guess our thoughts are mostly aligned.

Thanks for allowing it.

To opt out, GitHub users should visit /settings/copilot/features and disable “Allow GitHub to use my data for AI model training” under the Privacy heading.

Wikipedia is not the source, but your hint led me to the article that is:

https://www.polygon.com/2018/8/7/17660410/the-expanse-tabletop-rpg-kickstarter-green-ronin/

Source?

The TSA shouldn’t have been formed in the first place. It’s expensive, invasive security theater.

The process is designed to create friction. Users must first enable developer mode in system settings. They then need to confirm that they’re not being coerced. After that, they need to restart their phone and reauthenticate. And then they need to wait one day.

I hope this little interview is entirely on-device. It would be terrible if installing apps of our choice on our hardware required any contact with Google (even in the background).