Evidently playing the game isn’t a fun experience either, Aaron.

So, uh, not to sound out of the loop here, but what exactly is Sega getting here? They spent close to a billion dollars for…the Angry Birds IP?

And it’s prioritizing short-term views over long-term stability. Sure, rushing the review gets you views now, but if companies realize that you’re not going to give their product a fair shake, they’ll stop sending you products. Then to review things, you’ll need to buy them yourself, further cutting into your profits. If Billet Labs ever makes another product, they’re not going to send LTT a review sample because of this whole shitshow. Other startups are now going to be hesitant to send LTT review products because 1. They may not get a fair review, and 2. They may not get their review product back.

This is an important point. We’re all pissed at LTT right now so are eager to jump on any story that supports that narrative. I’m not saying I don’t believe Madison (what she says pretty much lines up with what I would expect). But before we convict Linus in the court of public opinion, we should allow him to argue in his defense.

Like, is the Billet Labs issue supposed to be sabotage or something? He’s shitting on it right from the beginning, uses the wrong card, installs it poorly, then refuses to retest because…it’ll cost him…like…$500?

It’s like if I was reviewing a screwdriver, decided to use nails because I couldn’t find any screws, held the thing upside down, then bitched about how shitty it was. And when it’s pointed out that my review isn’t fair, refuse to retest because a box of screws is $8 at Home Depot and the screwdriver probably sucks anyway. And on top of that, just sell the screwdriver to someone else instead of giving it back.

Does LMG have investments in a competitor or something? It is so willfully irresponsible that I almost want to claim conspiracy because I can’t believe that a company would make so many poor decisions by mistake. What is going on over there where a $500 reshoot that would ensure a fair and balanced review of the product is such an nonnegotiable prospect?

Either:

1. Hire more staff to do more development/QA in a shorter timespan
2. Delay release schedule to not be annual releases
3. Reduce game scope to something the team can accomplish

Gamefreak cannot keep its historically small team size while trying to make large, open world titles that release annually. Tears of the Kingdom tool over 5 years to develop, and that was working with pre-existing assets. Gamefreak’s model is not sustainable.

Is there a way that this fight can end with them both losing?

True. Just like free speech only matters when a far-right news pundit is banned on social media.

But you know the industry will learn the wrong lesson from this.

“Wow, people really like Baldur’s Gate 3. I know, it must be the dice rolls! Let’s have every interaction in Assassin’s Creed: Tropical Freeze be determined by RNG!”

Ever notice how with the far right, the second amendment is the only one that matters? Any attempt to restrict gun access in any way is immediately challenged as unconstitutional, no compromise. But the first amendment never gets that benefit. We’ll ban books and raid newspapers just fine.

Ecosystem is a buzzword that means overly monetized hellscape.

Maybe he was visited by 3 ghosts?

There needs to be a distinction between “I did my science badly” and “I knowingly published false information”. Wakefield’s paper linking vaccines and autism faked its data to imply a causal relationship between the two for the purposes of financial gain. You should absolutely be able to sue that guy if his paper damaged you in any way. Fuck 'em.

On the other hand, if you publish a study in earnest, but that study is full of mistakes and comes to an incorrect conclusion, you should not be able to be sued. If the study is bad, it would be easy enough to publish a response pointing out flaws with the original study. This is especially true since so many papers are published with the caveat of “this requires future study to confirm”.

In order to sue, you should be required to show some sort of malicious action behind the bad science, such as faked data.

This would be a dangerous precedent. If you disagree with scientific findings, you just conduct your own research to disprove the original study. If companies can sue researchers for publishing claims that damage them, it’ll just result in researchers withholding studies in fear a multibillion dollar corporation coming after them. Scientists need to be able to publish their research without fear of retribution.

The only exception I would accept is if someone published knowingly false research, a la Andrew Wakefield.

Oh look, it’s the fugitive slave act again.

In every thread I find you in, you just have the worst take.

Yeah, 10 years ago it was “millennials are ruining X”. Every older generation thinks the younger generation is lazy, self absorbed, and rude. Every younger generation thinks the older one is stuck up, stubborn, and resistant to change.

https://imgur.io/gallery/jVMtyuQ

Oh shit, don’t let Lemmy know about that.

Another thought is that they’re not trying to kill Mastodon, they’re trying to kill Twitter.

Mastodon has a bit of a community already, so by implementing ActivityPub, Meta can make its platform seem bigger than it is by pulling in Mastodon content. Gives it another edge over Twitter.

Best case scenario is Threads sees ActivityPub as just the cost of doing business. That way, even people who won’t use your platform are still interacting with it. Downside, people on your platform can leave for a federated alternative and not miss out on any content. Not sure if that downside makes up for the potential gains.

I think the default approach needs to be defederate first unless Meta shows actual interest in developing the fediverse with good intentions. If Threads become the majority provider of content to the fediverse and then we defederate, we lose all that content. It could lead to Mastodon, Lemmy, and Kbin withering and dying as everyone goes where the content is.

Yeah it’s support a platform, make that platform dependent on you, then abandon the platform. The users who remain are left with the option of abandoning the platform as well, or sit in a graveyard.