conciselyverbose

There are a bunch of free channels on the internet that some TVs can just stream without a dedicated app. These channels are supported by ads like cable/whatever channels, but not locked behind a subscription. VLC is supporting whatever formats they use to allow (or make it easier; IDK) people to watch them if they want.

The other part is that they’re working on web assembly to allow sites to use VLC as their embedded video player.

The other benefit with Costco is that they have an extremely generous return policy.

Some obvious stuff has different rules (electronics is 90 days, stuff like tires that have clear expected lifespans have their own rules), but it is extremely liberal. And my experience is that I pretty rarely have to use it, because while not everything is a premium product for a bargain price, they tend to ensure that the suppliers for products they sell have reasonable build quality and make stuff that isn’t trash designed to fail.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Computer_Entertainment,_Inc._v._Connectix_Corp.

The courts aren’t. Nintendo is.

Emulation has already been litigated to hell and back. It’s very clearly legal, including relying on users pulling a blob or two from their hardware for the whole thing to function.

By existing. (Yes, that’s the only argument they made. There is no assertion that anyone associated with Yuzu “cracked” (not necessary) or actively distributed TOTK.)

It’s a distraction. It’s literally impossible for it to be relevant unless the yuzu project page hosted TOTK files.

No, it’s not.

The case Sony lost also relied on the end user having a blob of Sony’s code. A user using their own key and a blob of Nintendo’s firmware, which is the official stance of Yuzu on the correct way to do so, is exactly the same thing. There’s nothing new to be litigated. Every part of Yuzu is very clearly legal.

The fact that it was used to play a game before official release straight up cannot possibly be relevant. It’s a distraction. The project isn’t, and isn’t capable of being, responsible for anything but its own code.

Emulation has also been litigated to hell and is also very clearly legal.

Black flag, more ships/weapon paths, maybe some fleet commands for bigger battles, expand the shipping jobs thing to feel like you’re really commanding a fleet.

Or none of that and just call it a pirate game.

If it was actually like Black Flag I’d be all over it.

But it’s live service shit.

The other dumb part is that when their manufacturing capability does significantly improve, AMD will happily sell similar chips to other people. And Valve won’t care in the slightest. Because all they want is people on PC so they buy games, many of which are through steam.

Linux being relevant is a bigger benefit to them than any revenue from the deck, and they’ve already demonstrated that it’s capable of pretty much any game that doesn’t actively exclude it.

The problem is that “don’t let people game you” is extremely difficult.

It’s many, many orders of magnitude easier to provide a useful search of sites that tell you the truth about what they are than it is when 99% of sites lie to you.

I’ve had decent experience with nobara with a 2080. I had a couple hiccups early, and had to reinstall basically right away, but after that it’s been solid.

I mostly don’t play multiplayer, but some games just aren’t the same single player.

Madden, for example, the AI just is too complex for them to handle it at a high enough level for the balanced but competitive strategy game football can be. All Madden is hard, but it’s hard by cheating. Playing against humans is how you get the chess match. I’m sure there are various other genres focused on strategy that are similar. AI can beat advanced humans in clean games like chess or go, but probably not on a PS5 and not with messier strategy games.

lol sounds like Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher.

I’ve definitely noticed the results suck ass, but this is a nice breakdown.

You should hate it as a manager. You’re filtering out every single quality candidate because only a deranged nut job would even consider such an unhinged request. Submitting a video, in and of itself, proves they are not worth hiring.

You don’t need to process every candidate. Just randomly take 5%, or 1%, or .001%, and do a real hiring process. Anything at all is better than requiring a video application.

That shouldn’t work. They should still be unconditionally liable for anything the rep said in all scenarios, with the sole exception being obvious sabotage like “we’ll give you a billion dollars to sign up” that the customer knows can’t be real.

There’s also that.

But purely on the premise of “you should take the time to record a video merely for the pleasure of maybe having us look at your application”, their expectations are way out of whack.

This isn’t like when Google put scavenger hunts or puzzles or whatever in ads and gave job offers to people who solved them. The people who got hired by those ads were following through out of curiosity/the fun of solving the problems, and that wasn’t the main/only way to get a job. It’s just a new absurd demand trying to push the threshold of what’s a legitimate ask.

The scary part is presenting it as a fucking privacy feature with no consequences.

Your company requiring video submissions for a fucking application is the easiest “this company is batshit insane and there’s no possibility working for them could ever be worth it” red flag I’ve ever seen.