If comparison against average monthly wage is your benchmark, it's still proportionately cheaper in Australia with average monthly wage being $6,201.43 (i.e., >50% of $11,000, whereas the coffee price is <50% of $10.16).
Average wages here are also higher than the majority of the countries above us on the average-coffee-price chart.
It does absolutely flood the feeds of some subscribed users when you post 40 (!!) things in one go to a single place. Would you be willing to consider either submitting in batches or spreading some submissions into more targeted communities? While I admire your dedication (and of course don't speak for everyone about preferences), I find this amount of stuff from a single sub/comm/mag at once really undesirable because in the aftermath it temporarily turns most of my subscription feed into just that and not much else.
Well I think you meant to reply to the other commenter, but in any case what you said included:
instead fix the rest of the shit weapons?! Making everything equally garbage does not solve the problem.
And it sounds like they're already trying to do this with the buffs (though again: I don't own the game). It's the first balance patch - I assume (and hope) that the situation will continue to improve with further updates similar to Helldivers 1 and its many patches.
Patch notes have 3 weapons/stratagems getting nerfed vs 5 weapons/stratagems getting buffed. I don't own the game but it sounds like they're already hitting it from both sides? If they do nothing but buffs there's a huge risk of just powercreeping everything.
Excluding Piledriver (?) to Zen, wouldn't 30% be the highest inter-generational IPC increase in Intel/AMD CPUs in at least 15 years? The article's original title also included quotes around "ABSURD", as the term is being re-used from the source's clickbait YouTube title lol.
P.s. you have your markdown reversed with the links - the text needs to be in the square brackets with the link in the parentheses. [text](https://example.com)
Submitted for good faith discussion: Substack shouldn’t decide what we read. The reason it caught my attention is that it's co-signed by Edward Snowden and Richard Dawkins, who evidently both have blogs there I never knew about.
I'm not sure how many of the people who decide to comment on these stories actually read up about them first, but I did, such as by actually reading the Atlantic article linked. I would personally feel very uncomfortable about voluntarily sharing a space with someone who unironically writes a post called "Vaccines Are Jew Witchcraftery". However, the Atlantic article also notes:
Experts on extremist communication, such Whitney Phillips, the University of Oregon journalism professor, caution that simply banning hate groups from a platform—even if sometimes necessary from a business standpoint—can end up redounding to the extremists’ benefit by making them seem like victims of an overweening censorship regime. “It feeds into this narrative of liberal censorship of conservatives,” Phillips told me, “even if the views in question are really extreme.”
Structurally this is where a comment would usually have a conclusion to reinforce a position, but I don't personally know what I support doing here.
I wonder if patch support being pulled after 2 months is down to lower-than-expected sales; it's certainly earlier than I would've expected on both the dev (HBS) and publisher (Paradox) side.
The realization that led us to develop PeerTube is that no one can rival YouTube or Twitch. You would need Google’s money, Amazon servers’ farms... Above all, you would need the greed to exploit millions of creators and videomakers, groom them into formatting their content to your needs, and feed them the crumbs of the wealth you gain by farming their audience into data livestock.
Monopolistic centralized video platforms can only be sustained by surveillance capitalism.
Even though we cannot pinpoint the exact budget Framasoft spent on PeerTube since 2017, our conservative estimate would be around 500 000 €
With these two perspectives it seems to be doing well, even if it can't / won't entirely displace the major players.
Goose Goose Duck released in 2021 and nonetheless didn't blow up until 2022. Among Us' explosion also happened only in the second half of the year, when most games experienced "lockdown growth" earlier during March-ish (see TF2, CS:GO, Rocket League).
I'm sure circumstances helped, but imo it seems difficult to attribute the delayed growth of those two titles solely to that. There are surely also other multiplayer-only titles that similarly weren't runaway hits on release that later became more played -- these are just the first two that I could confirm information for quickly.
There is no long tail for multiplayer-only games. You succeed wildly, right off the bat, or you die.
Now and then a game seems to buck this trend (Among us blew up after 2 years, Goose Goose Duck after 1 year). So there are exceptions to this rule, but I imagine it's increasingly hard to pull off the larger the studio's costs are.
If comparison against average monthly wage is your benchmark, it's still proportionately cheaper in Australia with average monthly wage being $6,201.43 (i.e., >50% of $11,000, whereas the coffee price is <50% of $10.16).
Average wages here are also higher than the majority of the countries above us on the average-coffee-price chart.