I dunno. It's weird. The guy's absolutely convinced he's going to walk into a job after graduation because he "looks the part", like employers are just going to look at his hipster style and not care that his portfolio is a dumpster fire. He's got the laziness of someone who was smart enough to coast through school without putting in any effort, and hasn't woken up to the fact that a degree takes more than that.
A lot of really good points on this, and I mostly agree. But I do go to university with a guy who is actively lazy: if there's a choice of spending 10 minutes on a task to do it properly or 30 seconds on it to do it shittily, he'll do the 30 second version every damned time because it's "less effort". He's a nightmare on group projects. We don't give him any tasks where it matters if the result is good anymore.
"Release the source code" isn't going to be considered a reasonable thing to ask a government to legislate on. "Make sure the game can still be played after support ends", which in practice means patching it so it doesn't require an internet connection to servers that no longer exist and/or allowing players to self-host their own servers, is far more likely to succeed. It's a reasonable request that someone who has bought something should be able to continue using it for as long as they want, no matter what happens to the company that sold it to them.
It's a request that stands a decent chance of success if a politician can be made to understand what the problem is, because it is an easy extension of existing consumer rights law. Requiring game studios to hand over their source code to gamers would be considered excessive and unreasonable, and is therefore much more likely to be denied outright.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. For the majority of gamers, the changes proposed would be more than sufficient, so that's a good reason to push for it even if it isn't what an open source idealist would want.
A requirement to leave a game in a "working state when support ends" doesn't mean continuing support (ie, running the server). It means the game should still work when the server is gone, which means either fully offline play, or a means for players to run their own servers. That's the whole point of this campaign, which is taking place across multiple countries.
Ah, it's active! I saw this a few weeks ago when the petition had been created but was being reviewed by the petitions team. Been waiting for it to be open for signatures, so thanks for the reminder. I have signed it.
I don't expect the government to do much about it, though. I've signed a number of these petitions over the years and the government response is always very non-committal. They can get more traction when an MP can be inspired to care, so if anyone has a youngish MP who might actually be capable of understanding what the problem is, it could be worth writing a letter to them directly (regardless of what party they're in - a 35 year old Tory MP isn't a complete write-off and may be more sympathetic than you'd expect.)
That said... could be the kind of thing the next government could be pushed to act on. We'll likely have a cash-strapped Labour government that'll be looking for stuff they can do to make things better for normal people which also don't cost the government any money, and this is a simple adjustment to consumer rights that would achieve that.
I haven't played it yet, but it was on my wishlist for a while, so when I saw it on sale a few days ago, I snapped it up and immediately installed it. I'm really excited to play it as soon as I have some free hours.
I don't go to my town's McDonalds very often, as I'm just not a fan of the food. But on the rare occasions I've been with a friend, finding a free space in the microscopic car park (which is shared with a half-dozen other businesses) has been a nightmare. I can see why people would opt for the drive-through instead.
I genuinely don't get it either. I have an account on FB for the exceedingly rare occasions when I need to contact someone who only has an FB account. I can't imagine being on there willingly.
I am actually noting that on my desktop, I'm not getting any ads or sponsored posts, just stuff from those I follow, and other people with similar content (so many frogs and sighthounds). I doubt it's because Instagram doesn't force ads on the desktop site. My adblocker is just doing a very, very good job.
I'm not on FB, but I have recently signed up for Instagram, similarly Meta-owned (due to the recurring problem that a lot of people in my life use it, and networking is distressingly essential these days), and just... why is so much of it ads and promos?
Yep, I agree with that breakdown. It's the people in the middle: tech literate enough to need their computer to do a lot, but not sufficiently interested in tinkering to spend time arguing with their OS, that are often better off using Windows or MacOS.
That is kind of the problem with Linux though. I definitely had hardware-distro compatibility issues, and I get how for some people, trying out a dozen different distros to find the one that works best for them is a lot of fun, and that's totally valid. It's just not a good fit for everyone. I think fans of Linux can overestimate its stability, ease of use, and suitability for all use-cases. It's right for some people, but not everyone.
My relationship with my Linux installation was disfunctional in its own way. It was that partner that went into a meltdown when presented with any new, slightly complicated situation that was outside of its extremely limited comfort zone. I guess that works for people that have the time and patience to hold its hand and convince it that it can actually do everything. But Linux definitely isn't suitable for all people in all situations.
Just to play Devil's advocate here... The US takes that approach to guns inside its own borders, expecting that asking nicely is enough to stop people shooting up schools. So it would be kinda hypocritical for the US to hold Israel to different standards. Guns are America's real religion.
That's what I was thinking. A multitude of small businesses are less efficient, so need more people to do the same amount of work as a single large company. And I would imagine that the competition created by many small companies all chasing after the same pool of employees would have a lesser ability to suppress wages: if one business won't pay their employees well, those employees will just go and work for someone else instead.
I'd really love to know if "job creators" are actually job creators, or if many small businesses actually create more jobs than one large one. Are "job creators" actually job destroyers?
I pretty much only use it for brainstorming ideas.