If it helps, there's very little that carries over between the two games. Without any spoilers, you lose your gear at the start of the BG2, most of which doesn't carry over anyway. You will start with the level you finished BG1 with, but BG2 boosts brand new characters to a certain level anyway. And I don't think the games track decisions made throughout like modern RPGs do.
That said, I played it years before Beamdog released that interlude DLC, so maybe things have changed in their Enhanced releases of the games.
I've been able to strip the Kobo DRM out of a couple of book bundles using Calibre. Haven't bought this one yet, but I'd assume there wouldn't be a problem.
They're still working on Daredevil though. They had to replace the showrunners because they were developing it as an episodic court drama rather than a Daredevil show to follow on from the Netflix series.
That's an oversimplification. All works are derivative to some extent. There's a huge difference between taking inspiration from something, to taking the characters and setting from something. Particularly if you're intending to make a profit.
If an author makes something that a large number of people enjoy, why shouldn't they be able to make money off it for the rest of their life? Why exactly should an individual give up the rights to their creation simply so that someone else can use their characters and their worlds?
To be clear, I'm talking solely on an individual level. I think the system we have where a corporation can own an idea is very broken. I'm also talking about this from a perspective of the world we currently live in. In an ideal world where money wasn't the endgame for survival, ideas would flow more freely and nobody would need to care. But that's not the world we live in.
I think an argument could be made to set it to the date of death of the author. I agree with the other guy that it should only apply to commercial works though.
I also don't think that the copyright should be transferable. The trading of ideas is an absurd concept to me. But then us humans do a lot of absurd things so I guess it's just par for the course.
The seed is more like an address. It's a number that gets paired with the prompt to tell the model what variation of the thing it should output. Given the same seed and same prompt, the model will output the same image every time, no matter what.
I appreciate where the author of this article is coming from, but I think they're being a bit too one-sided.
For example, they make the point that zoos don't contribute enough to conservation, donating only around 5% of their spending, as if the millions of dollars given doesn't justify their existence. But if zoos didn't exist, that's a big chunk of money that wouldn't be going towards conservation at all.
They also talk about the education aspect, that visitors don't necessarily read the information about the animals and instead go for the spectacle. But a child isn't going to read those plaques regardless, but seeing animals up close might ignite an interest in conservation later in life.
And one thing that the article doesn't really go into is the fact that humans are still actively hunting animals in the wild, and destroying habitats for profit. And while I think zoos are a bit of a band-aid fix when it comes to endangered species, I'd much rather see an animal in captivity surrounded by zookeepers that care about it rather than extinction.
In an ideal world, zoos wouldn't exist. In a slightly less ideal world, only open-plain zoos would exist. But we are a very long way from that, and I personally believe that reputable zoos are a positive in the world we currently live in.
It will be a few years before it's on GOG, so it really depends how patient you are. Fallout 4 only appeared on there a week or two ago to give you a frame of reference.
But Microsoft is doing exactly the same thing, only instead of paying for exclusivity of one title, they're buying developers so not just their next title, but all future releases will be exclusive, up until MS decides they're not worth it and dumps them.
Sony absolutely participates in anti-consumer practices, but let's not pretend that MS is any better.
Microsoft are no longer interested in selling consoles necessarily, otherwise they'd be holding stuff back from PC as well. They're interested in getting people into their ecosystem through Game Pass.
And while I agree with you that Sony and Nintendo have used plenty of anti-consumer practices, Microsoft has also done so in the past and I think the only reason they've been more pro-consumer of late is because they've been the underdog for a long time now. I would be anticipating a change in their behaviour the more people they get to subscribe to Game Pass, and this Activision-Blizzard deal is a huge step towards that.
BadlyDrawnRhino @ BadlyDrawnRhino @aussie.zone Posts 0Comments 56Joined 2 yr. ago
If it helps, there's very little that carries over between the two games. Without any spoilers, you lose your gear at the start of the BG2, most of which doesn't carry over anyway. You will start with the level you finished BG1 with, but BG2 boosts brand new characters to a certain level anyway. And I don't think the games track decisions made throughout like modern RPGs do.
That said, I played it years before Beamdog released that interlude DLC, so maybe things have changed in their Enhanced releases of the games.