imtyler

When it comes to DRM and content hosting, the recent closure of the Microsoft ebook store comes to mind.

If a marketplace is underutilized it risks becoming obsolete. And, unfortunately, sometimes that means loosing access to content.

There are additional considerations, of course. Steam is also a social network of sorts, so fracturing gaming communities is also of concern. But it could also just be that gamers are accustomed to Steam; they like it. And they don't like platforms that don't play well with it.

GOG Connect may be along the lines of what you're describing. The compatibly of games is on a temporary basis set by the publisher, but, yes, it does allow you to activate Steam purchases on GOG.

My two cents on Stadia: people don't like platforms that challenge Steam.

Steam was the first big digital games marketplace, and people have been using it for a long time. They've amassed many games, the future playability of which depends on the continued availability of Steam to host the code.

If you threaten Steam, you threaten a lot of hardcore gamer's libraries. Any platform that tries to compete is always controversial.

That's why I think some may be rooting for failure, formed through anecdotal observation.

Wow. The password manager I've been using for the past few years has dedicated buttons/gestures for copying the password to the clipboard (like many others, I'd assumed.)

I feel like the expectations in this case are clear: a copied password should only accessible when the user "pastes" it. (The app even clears the clipboard after a certain amount of time, making it seem like the only weak point in the system is the paste functionality.)

To find out that this is not the case is pretty mind blowing. Does anybody know of any good reasons why the clipboard shouldn't be secure?

>...They set up a legal landscape for their own benefit and everyone else’s detriment.

So if I’m understanding correctly, the problem is not a lack of willingness to break up/regulate this monopoly, but instead the regulations and lobbying that explicitly facilitated its creation?

Are there any inherent facets of a free market that prevent such abuses?

>People seem to think that the defective US healthcare system is an indictment on free-market capitalism. But there's nothing free-market at all about our system. What it's really an indictment on is cronyism, corruption, and rent-seeking.

Isn't the allowance of 'cronyism' etc, what makes the market "free?"

This is, of course, why they’ve qualified the association as being a personal one. “For us,” the circle represents…

Implying that this interpretation may/should be true for others comes across to me as self-serving, though. You can attach whatever meaning you wish to a circle, but unless you make an actual effort to convey that meaning, then a circle remains... a circle. And they haven’t made any effort to do so here.

IMO, They’re just serving up a big cup of hyperbole for anyone willing to take a sip. Par for the usual corporate course, I guess.

I understand your point, but what good are master tapes if they're not available to be heard? I think you could argue that destroying a musical distribution network has the same effect as destroying music: it's no longer available to be consumed.

If the cost of maintaining one's business practices requires subsidization by means of deception then really shouldn't matter.

Even if you're one of the ones who are benefitting and not getting screwed.

I feel like there's some hindsight bias here. By that I mean:

If I took two equally bad games-- one by a legitimate developer who may need some practice, and another by a developer whose intention is to scam the system-- would you be able to tell which is which?

I would argue that the former has a right to be on the platform (good luck trying to objectively define what constitutes a 'good' game, after all) and the latter does not. But there's no way to tell them apart until the devs show their true colors.

Seems fair to me.

This may not be a bad thing, though. (As long as they're doing it with discretion.)

A comment by 'vatueil' in this thread hinted at an important point: Steam is currently battling the massive library of half-baked 'crapware' that snuck onto the platform for the _sole purpose_ of being sold off as cheap keys in bulk. It's really more of a scam than anything.

Valve has a reputation to uphold, and it's no wonder they want to put this practice to and end.

Well, from a consumer's prospective, there's no compelling reason to spread out one's purchases (if the option exists to get them all in one place.) Having to download a separate launcher for each game isn't necessarily a deal breaker, but it's certainly not convenient either.

Imagine having to manage all your phone's apps through different stores, launchers, and website downloads. Sure, you can. But it's not as seamless as having all your apps in one place.

>Nobody is entitled to live in a certain area for a certain amount of money.

Not inherently, no. But legally speaking there are concepts like "rent control" and "adverse possession" that were created to assert on some level that people do, in fact, have a right to continue living in a space that they've occupied for a reasonable duration.

>You say gentrification like its a pejorative term.

I mean, it kind of is. It not only refers to 'improvements' but also the displacement of anyone below the middle class as a result of those improvements.

>My observation is that the poor just throw more trash on the ground, they don't make their beds, they live in filthy or cluttered houses...

I would argue here that you've confused correlation with causation.

Perhaps a minimum wage 60 hours/week worker just doesn't have the time or energy to make their bed, not an unwillingness. Maybe the poor conditions in a neighborhood are what make it affordable, not preferable. Etc.

According to Wired it looks like a grey area[1]. Also, Red Shell, the company behind the software, seems to be aware of this[2].

[1]http://www.wired.co.uk/article/red-shell-game-tracking-gdpr

[2]https://blog.redshell.io/gdpr-and-red-shell-57f9c03b5769

Isn't the system specifically designed with 'disengagement' in mind? It leaves the driver with nothing to do. Let's not pretend that sitting there for hours with nothing to do isn't uncomfortable. It would be unusual not to seek out something to engage one's self.

I can't fully fault the driver here. It's the system.

>maybe happened once [and] it's going to get put out there as the norm.

According to employees, it happens frequently.

I extend my arguemets about whether or not the behavior occurred (at all) to the frequency of the behavior: either it's a lie or it's not.

Once again, seems to me like it's not.

>They don't really do that, you know.

I doubt there will ever be an official metric, so it's your word against theirs.

I, for one, find the narrative that "they're just making it up so they can extort their employer for more money" to be less believable than than simply considering that it's the truth.

Furthermore, it was pointed out earlier in this thread that employees discuss engaging in this behavior _amongst themselves_. If it is, in fact, completely untrue, you would have to add "widespread conspiracy" to your acceptable narrative. (My reasoning being that there's far less incentive to lie to a co-worker than to a boss; only the boss can affect change. The notion that 260k low level employees have banded together to promote a lie, including amongst themselves, is so unlikely I'd call it laughable.)

I just don't think the _possibility_ of a backlash (for defensible numbers, no less) justifies withholding information about personal safety. It's not like we're talking about sales figures, production stats, or other trivial things.

Regardless of how the numbers compare, if they're bad, shouldn't it be the responsibility of the company to attempt to alleviate the problem (instead of just covering it up)?

I suppose they could technically do both, but not acknowledging problems of substantial magnitude could be considered endangerment. Like the mayor from Jaws.

"Pontificate" implies a pompous demeanor, I think you meant pondering?

I use http://mytvrss.com (no affiliation). You check off the shows you watch and it creates a customized RSS feed for you. Combined with Google Reader I never miss a show.

I agree. I'm sure Google has at least some idea of what's going on. I'll assume you're using pseudonyms and other falsified credentials in order to prevent Google from linking your information... but your phone's MAC address and IP indicate that the accounts are all being utilized regularly by the same device. The big question is whether or not Google's systems are sophisticated enough to distinguish one device with multiple users from a single user with multiple accounts. Because Google's algorithms are proprietary there's little chance we'll ever definitively know whether or not they're successfully seeing through your tactics (unless there's some sort of public privacy statement that I don't know about).

At this point I'd say the benefits are outweighed by the fact that your efforts could very well be pointless.

I visit hundreds of websites every week, not just Google. Would that mean I have to pay them all "nontrivial" amounts of money? The internet is largely ad-supported; you're talking about a (admittedly) radical shift in the _entire_ internet ecosystem. Kind of audacious, no?

Could this perhaps have been Microsoft's intention? They've implemented a widely unpopular feature that is bound to be circumvented on a large scale. They basically bastardized the execution of DNT, making it moot while at the same time protecting them from any personal liability. Or am I being cynical?

What I said wasn't meant to be construed as a universally applicable statement, quite the opposite. It's highly specific to the industry. Music isn't the same as software. According to Maslow's hierarchy of needs [1] (which is a theory, admittedly) music is used to self-actualize, which is less important than, say, food and water (which are physiological needs). The only value to music is the value the listener places on it. It's not really necessary for everyday life.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs

There's no empirical way to measure the amount of effort or creativity that goes into something. It just seems to me like 20 dollars for a movie is more justifiable than 15 on an album, based on the _apparent_ amount of work that went towards their creation (not to mention the actual cost). In the end, I could probably make an album myself, but I couldn't create an entire movie. Why are they priced so similarly?

This is probably going to end up being a controversial opinion, but I just don't think music is worth that much anymore (fiscally speaking). Sure, there was a time when being popular meant signing a contract-- it was the only way to distribute your music on a large scale. Radio and physical copies were the only way to hear music, period. But these days with the internet and the right software practically anyone can create and distribute high quality professional sounding music. It's just not that difficult anymore, and I don't think it justifies such a steep price tag. Could there be such thing as a "music bubble"?

The pricing page utilizes some odd phrasing. Apparently the free plan does not include "privacy". Am I the only one who was thrown by that?