It sucks that music replacement is almost expected. A track was popular once, they’ll ask for 30x royalties on the next go.

Not that it succeeded long term, but I salute Apple Arcade’s venture on this. It’s a subscription service that aimed to highlight iPhone games that had no monetization, and were usually small indie games with a fun idea.

If you hate Windows 11 and don’t mind tinkering, I’d almost think Linux would be a better option especially if your preference is for retro games.

Since everyone’s posting their anecdotes:

I tried out Bazzite, a distro intended for gaming. Much of it was great, but often after coming back from sleep mode, the whole desktop would be suffering from graphical corruption; something I’d largely chalk up to bad drivers.

And, somewhat ironically, I’m also a cyclist, who needs to plan out winter trips when it’s often going to be dark and people are drunk.

Decentralization is a bit like showing people “Here’s how to make friends. I won’t actually introduce you to anyone, though.” I kind of want to at least get a starting point off a general topic.

I agree; and I personally believe that the fault is with all the voters. All the voters need to do better next time.

There is potential to put yourself in an unmovable situation when you deny the capacity for individuals to find fault in, and correct, themselves. When they’re all “special snowflakes incapable of fault, for whom the horrible and evil politicians must serve to attain their vote” you may set yourself up for either a failing relationship, or lies. Contrary to what one might expect, saying “I’ve heard the opinions of others, and I think I was wrong about X” is not a social death sentence. I’ve said it online before, and others need to be ready to do the same.

Maybe JFK expressed that thought better than I can.

I agree that right now, our economists have a terrible way of defining a “good economy”. They have praise for a set of numbers such as the stock market rates, which have almost no connection to the well-being of common people.

We need more medians and fewer averages; not to measure wealth when it’s spread among the extremes.

This statement implies popularity = good, universally.

In the 1800s, slavery was popular. Hence, should a candidate have run on preserving slavery?

“Jill made bad choices. I blame Bob because he didn’t convince Jill to make a good choice.”

This is such circular fucking reasoning. Apparently it’s literally impossible for a voter to make a stupid decision, because all blame will circle back to the candidate for “Not being convincing enough”.

Being right doesn’t automatically make you popular.

No, was not directed at you. I was agreeing; Nintendo is stupid and trigger-happy with its lawsuits, but going after this guy makes sense.

I imagine a lawsuit would likely bring up the topic of how hard it would be for a developer to keep the game around past purchase.

For instance, imagine a massively multiplayer online game; everyone playing the game is acutely aware of how much server hardware is needed to maintain that online presence, and it’s unrealistic to assume it would exist forever.

That’s probably why attention was pushed onto The Crew. It’s a racing game that shouldn’t need much from a server, so it’s arguably unfair to tie it to that access and take it offline.

It annoys me how often my standpoint on topics on Lemmy has been “I hate the same people you do, but your reasoning for hating them makes so little sense.”

Source: Pretty much every episode of It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia (and, of course, real life)

Silly, but sitcom silly:

All week, Hank had been receiving hints from his wife that he was going to get “the roast of his life”. Finally, at the end of the week, he’s attending a community gala with all their neighbors and friends. Hank, worried that all his darkest secrets are going to be exposed, decides to take the chance to get ahead of his wife’s belittling, and takes the stage to mock her for her terrible spending habits and overpoweringly obnoxious perfume.

His wife, mortified, leaves the room in tears and the room turns against him; but he simply deflects the hecklers by stating she was going to do the same to him - that she’d give him the roast of his life. Finally, he gets an inkling of what he’s done wrong. While his wife goes out for drinks with her friends to console her, he and his friend rush to his home. There, this scene plays.

I’m also curious if there’s any risk of the Japanese government finally cracking down on those places and setting stricter laws on gambling. Maybe not in the next few years, but sometime in the future.

I think the reason the advice is so pointed to one group is, there’s many people who disrespect the opinion of every minority, and think they’re all in a sympathetic league against them. Being belittled by another white man baffles them and makes them worry about being disincluded.

The people you’re protecting also didn’t necessarily answer that dumb bear question.

Or, it says a lot about the intentions of each and every person that either voted for him, or didn’t vote.

“It’s Alice’s fault for not reminding Bob to pay the heating bill”. And I do mean reminding - as in an extremely obvious thing.

I think “Disclaimer: Product may explode and take out your eye” only goes so far in terms of warning consumers. Better to actually have something protecting them.

EDIT: My tired mind when I wrote that was just specifically annoyed at the use of disclaimers to excuse a negative trait of software/products. Basically, I was reminded of when Cyberpunk hit the issue of seizure content, and all they did was add a generic warning to the game. But, I really should have added: Sony attempting to use consumer protection to excuse PSN is also stupid. Basically, I’d gotten off topic.

My own argument to these people has been that I’d prefer they go out and cast their (wasted) votes for a third party, rather than simply stay home. A lot of Lemmy disagrees with me on that, focusing on the (true) realization that their third parties won’t get elected.

In this election’s current aftermath, much of the blame has been stating that voters were just lazy or unmotivated. The only thing this message encourages is to repeat more rallies, make more promises by demographics and region so people know to get out and vote.

If you vote third party, it sends a message that you are motivated to vote, but you are not pleased with the current messages of the party. That results in a very different change of action.

Unfortunately, this whole practice is extremely long-term-focused. Many people in this election have been desperate for short-term solutions, like the Ukraine/Gaza wars. Ideally, this kind of reaction would have started in 2016/2020 - but third-party votes have been miniscule in those elections too.