fair enough

Also, i know it sounds stupid, but check it anyway…have you removed the plastic cover (if there is one ) on the cpu cooler side.

Hah, 3 whole comments, all of them nuts.

Another bot for the blocklist.

That’s one of the reasons why you get delayed or cancelled, over-budget projects that go nowhere. ( another big one is corruption and general financial shenanigans ).

if you throw a lot of money at a problem/project that doesn’t have reasonable management and competent understanding of where that money could work efficiently then you’re asking for trouble.

Destinating more resources to that quickens and makes better that process, though, incentivating people to work on it and test it.

That is charmingly naive, in my experience.

I’m not saying more money wouldn’t help, I’m saying throwing money at it isn’t generally a stand-alone solution, which is what i think the person you were replying to was trying to say.

That’s exactly my point, you are taking the stance that people didn’t buy alan wake because it wasn’t on steam, to a degree that’s true, i’m saying that i think a larger proportion didn’t buy it specifically because it was on EGS.

If it were released as a game you could buy and play sans-platform, then i’d agree with you. It’d certainly see less sales than a steam release, because steam is where everyone is.

My stance is basically if you remove steam entirely, Standalone Sales > EGS. Add steam back in and you get Steam > Standalone > EGS

Think in terms of food, you’re basically saying the it’s the fault of the 3.5 star monopolistic countrywide chain fast food place that nobody want’s to eat at the recently health-inspection-failing 1 star food-poisoning cafe.

Is there a monopoly, sure, is the competition so bad people avoid it regardless of the monopoly, also yes.

If you were using something like GOG as an example, i’d fully agree with you, but EGS has seemingly infinite funds and they still managed to release something so bad nobody wants to use it, even for “free” games.

It’s not even just the platform, epic as a company have a reputation, so they have to also overcome that, which they have not.

That’s a terrifying amount of power that people aren’t bothered by

Historically there’s been no need to be worried, generally, i agree that’s not ideal, but again name a viable comparable alternative.

even though we’re talking about company that’s smug about selling gambling to children.

You mean as opposed to the company that actually lost a class action regarding loot boxes in their game targeted at children?

You aren’t even wrong about this but “People don’t buy games from this company who famously lost a lawsuit regarding gambling targeted at kids because this other company who also do sketchy kids gambling things are …better at PR?” isn’t a convincing argument.

Everyone should be better at this, but they aren’t.

I will preface this with : I have many games that are not in steam that I play regularly, I understand this isn’t the norm, I have zero paid games in EGS and outside of checking the platform I never use it.

Alan wake on EGS is a terrible example to support your claim.

It’s like being upset that a fancy new car hasn’t recouped costs when it’s only available in 4 custom made dealers that are only open half the time and the manufacturer refuses to allow it to be sold in all the places people normally buy cars.

Sure, that is certainly a choice but it’s a choice that would have been part of the risk assessment before the money was sunk.

Steam does have a monopoly, because it works and there isn’t anything better.

There is a bit of resistance to switching, most game libraries are in steam because it’s been the best option for a very long time.

If EGS worked well and epic (outside of unreal engine) wasn’t such a shitshow the platform would be fine.

It’s doesn’t and they aren’t so it’s not.

It can’t compete on features, support or stability so it tried exclusivity, that hasn’t worked out for them.

Steam has its own shit, sure, that percentage is some apple level monopolist bullshit.

Name a comparable, viable alternative?

Not sure how versed/willing you are to selfhost but I’ve heard good things about tube archivist.

There are also a bunch of ui’s for yt-dlp, though i can’t vouch for quality.

It’s somewhat of a catch, that’s generally how monopolistic moats work but you really shouldn’t be relying on google as a backup service for obscure videos you wish to keep.

I’ve no idea of the amount of lectures, guides, documentaries and other non-entertainment media that is available exclusively on youtube, but again it isn’t an archiving service.

They can, will and have deleted whole channels for various reasons, most of which were bullshit, if you find something you absolutely have to keep, download it.

That being said, the process of downloading, archiving and curating content on anything more than a trivial scale can be much more involved than it seems, especially if you want backups/redundancy.

I’ve never been a big youtube user so my opinion on this is coloured by the fact that i don’t have that much invested in the platform.

Literally any other form of entertainment.

Though the statement was to stop using it, not replace it.

I shouldn’t have anything to hide, but I’m part of a group the current fascist leadership in government want’s to eradicate, so hide I shall.

I agree and i think a lot of people who espouse “nothing to hide” as an approach haven’t actually thought it all the way through.

Then there’s the fascists, dictators, oligarchs and other all around shitbags who just want the control.

That said, I also feel like people acting like the remote server they are connected to is tracking what you do on it as some kind of surprise is so stupid. “Facebook is keeping track of the pictures I uploaded to it!!!” There’s a lot of stuff to complain about Facebook, google, or whoever, but them tracking stuff you send to them willingly isn’t one of them.

This always surprises me, i originally thought it was because people didn’t understand how these things work or how capitalist companies work.

More and more it seems like people don’t care until it affects them, which is somewhat understandable, it takes effort to care about this stuff and a lot of people will never be directly affected by the consequences.

What i do still think is that the general population has no idea the extent of what can be done with all of the information they are volunteering.

That’s very slowly changing but the usages of the data are also increasing at a much more rapid pace than before.

Oh yeah, the whole article could be reductively summed up as

“DeepSeek and all the other LLM services are almost as bad as each other, but we think deepseek is worse…because the Chinese government are known for doing bad things”.

The title is factual, if a little clickbaity.

Obviously keystrokes you submit to a website are submitted to the website.

This though, it’s not technically accurate, a lot of forms and input are done client side and then the resulting information is parceled up and sent to the server.

The actual keystroke data isn’t normally sent.

Though this article doesn’t go in to what kind of keystroke data is sent, if it was something more than just which keys in which order then that’s perhaps an indicator that it’s actively being collected for a reason, rather than just incidentally.

If you want to get really paranoid about such things it’s known that you can you can do interesting things with actual keystroke data.

Also, afaict none of the the non-chinese services have specified that they don’t do this.

i mean…yes? that is generally how search platforms work.

I wouldn’t recommend anybody use any google based stuff directly (or at all, if possible) but if you do, then sending the search query is generally what would happen.

Also fair.

Reason is fine, doesn’t mean everyone has to agree.

If you’ve got nothing to hide you don’t have to worry ?

edit : For clarification, i consider “If you’ve got nothing to hide you don’t have to worry” to be a naive argument, at best, in any privacy conversation, but I’m not averse to a well-reasoned argument to the contrary.

The wording here was unclear, what i mean to ask was:

“do you believe If you’ve got nothing to hide you don’t have to worry ?”

See, now that’s a more thorough explanation of your position.

I disagree with pretty much all of your assertions (though the witch hunt stuff can be true sometimes) , but at least i know I’m disagreeing with an opinion formed using the whole of the information provided.

This “context” added doesn’t move my post a centimeter IMO.

It shows you read the initial information in it’s entirety and still came to the conclusion you did.

That removes the possibility of responses such as “Did you even read the initial tweet?”.

Well… it should remove that possibility, in practice it just means you can safely ignore those responses because clearly the people making those responses haven’t read your response in it’s entirety.

If all he said was literally “i approve of this pick for this position” you’d be correct.

What actually happened was he approved of the pick and also claimed the republicans are now actually the party that stands for the “little guy”.

Then followed up with a non apology that claimed what he said was not intended to be a “political statement”.

by all means, argue that you think there’s a fuss over nothing, but if you leave important context out seemingly because it doesn’t suit your narrative it weakens your argument substantially.

I provided you with a very basic example in which your “mathematical impossibility” breaks down.

So far you’ve stated that there were only two possible interpretations of a statement and then followed up with “mathematical impossibility”.

You are correct though, you can’t reason with someone who didn’t use reason to get to their conclusions.

Saves me some time, good luck.

I’m afraid that fighting oppression and restoring the past oppressed to a level playing field involves finding if actual individuals did indeed suffer from oppression and compensating them for it in some way, a far more difficult task than taking the Fascist’s shortcut of presuming that everybody from a specific race, gender or sexual orientation are equally worthy or unworthy.

Wait…so you’re belief system around this is that the only way to address past injustices to a group or demographics is to find out which specific individuals were impacted and help only them ?

That’s delusional, not in an ad hominem kind of way but in a literal “no basis in reality” way.

You don’t seem to understand what fascism means so all the arguments based on a faulty interpretation are going to be faulty.

Real question though

Because it is literally Mathematically impossible for such a process to be improved to a point where there is full fairness of treatment for all

I’d be genuinely interested to see how you got here , because the anecdotal pseudo-explanation isn’t an actual explanation.

There’s so many faulty assumptions in there it’s difficult to take any conclusion you get to seriously.

You’re assuming that prejudice only applies to one side of this argument, If you start off with two groups:

Group A : 20

Group B : 10

Then Taking 5 from A and moving it to B isn’t prejudice against A.

That’s not even a very accurate example because it assumes a closed system with only 2 distinct groups.

It seems your argument is that group B might not all be as affected, ok, so let’s do that one:

• Group A1 : 9
• Group A2 : 11
• Total : 20

• Group B1 : 3
• Group B2 : 7
• Total : 10

Say we do the same thing here and move 5 from Group A to Group B

• Group A1 : 8
• Group A2 : 7
• Total : 15

• Group B1 : 6
• Group B2 : 9
• Total : 15

Do that for any number of sub-groups, down to an individual person.

It seems your understanding of mathematics is about as grounded as your idea of fascism so i don’t think you’re going to see how what you’re saying doesn’t work.

You can’t Prejudice your way into stopping Prejudiced treatment, not Ideologically and not even Mathematically.

You certainly can’t stop prejudice if you don’t understand what it means and when/where it applies.

It’s difficult to see whether or not a mathematical solution can be found if you don’t understand the practical applications of it.

Having lived and worked in both The Netherlands and Britain, I’ve seen actual American-style quotas systems in Britain that explicitly priviledged a specific gender (rather than what you describe, which is a system meant to remove any and all discrimination, even if subconscious), and the result was pretty bad, both because the worst professionals around there were from that gender and clearly only got the job due to quotas and at the same time competent professionals that happen to have that gender were not taken as seriously and were kinda second class professionals even though they did not at all deserve it.

Again with this, the systems aren’t design to remove discrimination, they are design to counteract the discrimination that already exists.

The difference between equality vs equity.

Though bullshit hires based solely on quota’s do exist, I’m not pretending that doesn’t happen.

In fact, that specific place, which is the only one I ever worked in with an American style quota system, was the most sexist place I ever worked in, in my entire career (which spans over 2 decades) - people would not say sexist things (lest HR punish them), all the while they would definitelly have different competence expectations and even levels of how seriously they took people as professionals depending on people’s gender. Meanwhile the people that got in via quotas tended to be the kind that would play the system rather than do the job, which often made the whole environment even more sexist.

Those quota systems aren’t specifically American, but they have certainly gone all-out in recent times.

Sounds like a bad workplace, implementing processes badly. Is that a reflection on the idea as a whole ?

Interestingly, IT in The Netherlands was way less sexist in a natural way than almost all places I worked in Britain, with almost always more well balanced gender-wise teams and were - at least that I noticed - nobody assuming anything in professional terms based on people’s gender or sexual orientation.

As i said in my other reply, because the Netherlands is better at this in general. It’s not better because it doesn’t have the same systems, it’s better because it doesn’t need them in the same way(or at all).