Goodeye8

Not sure. I haven’t found a credible number on how much revenue they need to hit for the bonus as most news sites don’t seem to mention it. The only number I found was around 70 million in revenue but because I only saw it on one smaller site I don’t know how trustworthy that number is.

I don’t expect them to bring back the Red War campaign. They’d have to go through the entire campaign and touch up all old assets because they were made for before the engine upgrade. It would be a pretty significant undertaking. But opening it to Linux users is probably a walk in the park because it’s most likely the anti-cheat that is preventing the game from Running on Linux and Battleye to my knowledge does have a Linux build, so it just needs to be implemented. But as it is with big companies and Linux they usually just don’t want to do it.

Unless Krafton can successfully appeal the court decision (which I doubt they can) they have a deal with Unknown worlds that if Subnautica 2 meets certain time-sensitive revenue milestones Krafton has pay Unknown worlds $250 million. In short, if Subnautica 2 does well in early access Krafton gets fucked.

Krafton. They pretty much tried to sabotage Subnautica 2 to make sure they wouldn’t need to pay out 250 million to the development studio. It went to court and the judge pretty much told Krafton to suck it. It was such a stupid move that after the successful early access launch Krafton stock actually went down instead of up.

As long as Isreal is paying for Eurovision there’s very little reason for Eurovision to kick out Israel. Which is also why this petition won’t do anything

Yeah I absolutely believe Xbox fanboys would be in favor of anti-consumerist practices. Not because I think they’re stupid but because one of the main points of contention of the “console wars” were exclusives. Nintendo has exclusives, Sony goes back to exclusivity so obviously monke brain goes “we need exclusivity”. Console gamers want to go back to petty tribalism so their suggestions are going to be reflections of the same tribalism they want to return to.

I mean Trump is a perfect representation of Christianity his voters, just fake posturing to look like a good person. If Jesus was alive today and lived in America the vast majority of Trumpist Christians would outright hate him for being a hardcore commie bastard. And that’s assuming the police won’t just shoot him.

You’re missing the point. It’s not about opposing Israel through voting, it’s the questionable correlation between voting and the actual popularity of the song. The televotes are supposed to be based on popularity of the song because voters vote for the songs they like the most. There should be a strong correlation between the amount of votes a song gets and the amount of listens it gets on a streaming service because why would you vote for a song you don’t want to listen to. Last year Israel got the most votes from the public, their song has listened only 17 million times on Spotify. Meanwhile the runnerups Estonia and Sweden both had 120 million listens. In fact if you look at previous years pretty much all televote winners have had a lot of listens (the lowest I saw in the last 5 years was around 80 million). It’s only Israel who wins the televote but can’t even reach 20 million listens. The correlation that should be there simply isn’t there.

See this is why we need smart appliances, so AI could make you coffee.

Big brain mode by Trump? Don’t need strong borders when you make everyone American.

AI also gives you the benefits of a middle manager. If everything works as intended you take the credit but if something breaks that’s not your fault, AI made the mistake. If they try to put the blame on you just say you have 6 agents working on 6 different domains all cross-reviewing their commits and you can’t be expected to review every single line of code yourself. Time to play corporate like a damned fiddle!

This is exactly why I don’t like this hard “billionaire” line. Because it detaches the argument from how they amassed their wealth and instead focuses on “they’re wealthy so it’s bad”. I don’t know enough about Swift to know if she in the socialist sense “earned” her wealth, but let’s say that she did. Let’s say her labor is that valuable and within the framework of of what she can reasonably influence she hasn’t deliberately exploited anyone for her benefit. If she put in the labor and walked away with a billion, what is wrong with that? Are we supposed to virtue signal and claim that she should’ve gone above and beyond to make sure every penny was ethically obtained? Are we supposed to perpetuate the capitalist misinformation that socialism is when you’re not allowed the fruits of your labor is it makes you too rich?

And are we also supposed to turn a blind eye to all the investor leeches who do no actual labor but take a profit margin from the labor of others? You know, as long as their wealth stays below a billion. Are you some kind of an ethical capitalist if you give away every penny that would make you a billionaire?

Yes, the vast majority (if not all) billionaires haven’t earned their billions but I think we should be emphasizing how they made their billions instead of the fact that they have a billion. It’s far more important to get rid of the leeches than it is to get rid of billionaires. Even if there aren’t any ethical billionaires getting rid of them isn’t going to get rid of all the multi-millionaires who are doing the same horrid shit.

To put it plainly I was asking if the context matters more than the content, because I think it does. I agree the faux bait community shouldn’t exist but if you’re going argue that content shouldn’t be posted in the first place I’m going to disagree. Not because it’s my kind of content, at to be clear it very much is not, but because I think that’s the slippery slope. That would be saying small flatchested women porn is CP which means men who like those kinds of women are pedos and those women are essentially jailbait. I think that’s stupid.

I think if we to improve the state of NSFW content we also need to be very specific in our wording of the criticism because how criticism is worded can change the context and as we agree, context matters. And that’s what I want from this discussion, clarity on what people are criticizing. Because the other person is right that the content there is not the problem, but he’s wrong because the reason to defed wasn’t because of the content itself but rather how it was framed. And I think you also blurred that line with the fiction story example.

You’re just taking offense to the community being called fauxbait? So if the community is called tiny titties it’s all good?