This. I was so pissed when I saw the EULA for KSP2. I love KSP more than probably any game that has ever been released, due in no small part to the vibrant modding community. The fact that they decided to abuse the very people who made KSP great is disgusting and short slighted.

You can’t really say Blizzard has not raised prices when they have added microtrans and mental health costs to the game.

Gabe heads a company which is successful because it respects its employees, customers, and suppliers instead of constantly trying to marginalize and abuse them. They are not perfect by any means, but they do fit into the definition of ethical capitalism, which should not be understated. They don’t employ anticompetitive tactics like bribing/coercing developers into exclusivity contracts. They don’t operate with a bunch of 1099 contractors so they can avoid providing benefits. Etc.

What, you don’t want to pay another 80 bucks for what could have been a content patch to last year’s game? Pshhh… You’re not a real fan.

Is what I would say if I were the type of guy who should take a long walk off a short pier.

This raises a rather sticky situation for the coming years. I have been seeing more and more posts about developers using GPT generated code in various projects. If a game is made and it is found that GPT was used for some parts of the core code, does the whole project lose its copyright?

Other way around. Require sales of licenses to games to be perpetual. The way you phrased it means that the license holders can charge way more.

Same. I initially had the sinking dread then I saw that they actually fixed the arbitration clause and I became quite elated.

Your idea is one of the specific reasons many companies try to label everyone as an “independent contractor”. Especially people like voice actors are not “employees”, and thus do not count as such for your idea.

Why do all of these companies decide they are so tired of existing?

That is actually intentional. They do it to restrict refunds on Steam and consoles.

No biggie. Even though it is satire, the analysis is sound. Given the amount of fatty acids that are stored in tissues in the body or expelled as “solid” waste, paired with the offset of dairy cows, so long as the waste is managed properly and not just left to aerobic decomposition, there should be able to be well in excess of 80x the volume if CO2 removed from the atmosphere as there is methane/CO2 released post-consumption. As long as whatever mega food conglomerate who starts making it uses atmospheric CO2 and doesn’t burn limestone to obtain concentrated quantities quickly.

I definitely understand that. My commentary is mostly satire based in fact. Hence the FBI at the end.

I play Rimworld and Factorio. Those are 200 hours per playthrough each and I do about 2 a year for them. My Steam Deck helps a lot with the latter though. The UI for the former unfortunately does not lend itself to the smaller screen even though the game plays well.

Luckily methane, while a potent greenhouse gas, breaks down in the atmosphere quickly. It does break down into CO2 and water, so the question quickly becomes: “are the farts of Midwesterners more potent than the amount of CO2 taken out of the atmosphere by making butter?”

My quick guess is luckily, no, they are not. Some amount of the butter will be stored in fatty tissues which will be sequestered 6 feet underground in a cement box eventually. Most will be shat in liquid or semi-solid form into a toilet to be processed by waste management. As long as they are responsible and compost it into nitrate rich fertilizer we should stay very comfortably ahead of the FBI (Fart to Butter Index).

Also, for anyone who thinks that carbon bound up in fatty acid chains in butter is released back into the atmosphere through metabolism, I will direct your attention to the population US Midwest and Great Plains. These people have been proving that you can effectively sequester butter for many decades.

No, they will continue to do that because it makes them uncomfortable.

What gets me is part of Project 2025 is planning on reclassifying all of the workers in the exact agencies this affects with sycophants and yes-men. As I understand it, the entire idea of that move is that Trump and the GOP can bypass Congress and the courts and essentially rule however they want.

Doesn’t this decision run counter to that? Instead of allowing the regulatory bodies that are going to be sycophantilized to just run shot over their domains, now the risk having a non-sympathetic judge or an unfavorable swing in voting in Congress?

Oh, I get that. I actually have a BS in Applied Mathematics and specialize in Statistics, Probability Theory, and Data Science professionally. I am well aware of how unstable thses numbers are, which is why I made the jab at the “soft sciences” and their acceptable sigma analysis points.

What I was more noting was the linguistic tic of OP saying that they ‘exaggerated’. I freely admit that I did not actually read the article and do not know what the author did in it, but the click-bait title was accurate given the data shared. So what was done is to ‘sensationalize’ the results. If we are ever going to get better and teach society how to understand when statistics are being used to manipulate, we need to be sure to describe it in a way that people can recognize one manipulation from another.

I would see an example of manipulation through exaggeration being “cops kill more white people per year than black people”. Yes, this is true, but it is inflating one piece of the statistics that ignores a lot of relevant factors, like the per capita rate, the proportion of stops and actions by police which result in violence, etc.

Sensationalizing is what we have here. Intentionally choosing words that fell the full picture of the statistic in a way which causes knee jerk reactions. There isn’t anything left out per se, the time frame is described, the change in the statistic is mentioned, and a potential causal relationship is proffered. Would "The overturning of Roe has caused a statistically significant increase in the number of voluntary sterilizations among young US Citizens’ haave been more genuine, yes. Is it catchy or emotional, no.

I didn’t read this article, so idk how they spun things, but given the title and the information you shared from the actual study, they sensationalized, not exaggerated. 5.31 is an 87% increase from 2.31, which is a rounding error off 2x. Honestly, in medical/psychological/anthropological/sociological studies the sigmas are never high enough for my comfort as a probabilist anyway.

Don’t worry, they will also be making it so you have to use their data mining apps that require unconscionable permissions just to see that they are changing prices every 10 seconds.