Well, they said they would 'discuss' the crappy anticheat too, but so far nothing has been done about that either. I won't hold my breath.

Actual Ex-Mormon who attended BYU here: Soaking was never a thing, I have only ever heard about it on the internet or literally in the context of Mormons laughing about non-Mormons believing in Mormons doing such things (yeah, they're meta about it).

What is an actual thing is Mormons getting married super early (for a multitude of reasons, one being the horny). Easily over 70% of the students I knew were married by the time they were seniors in college.

On the note of traffic, I still browse Reddit because it has niche communities that I want to interact with. However, I don't comment, post, or even up/downvote anymore. My interaction is now purely browsing, and I imagine it may be similar for other once-power users.

It's to keep design space open and to minimize developer work.

Let's say we decide to keep an overperforming gun. It does all the things. It has all the ammo, all the damage, all fire rate, all the reload speed. Now, all future weapons have to be made with that as a consideration. Why would players choose this new weapon, when there's the old overperformer? The design space is being controlled and minimized by the overperformer. Players will complain if new weapons aren't on the level of the overperformer.

Now, let's say we have ten weapons with one clear overperformer. Now, we can either nerf a single weapon to bring it in line with the others, or buff nine weapons to attempt to bring them up to the level of the overperformer. Assuming the balance adjustments of each weapon are the same amount of work, that's 9x the effort. However, if we assume we do this extra work to satisfy players, now we have ten overperforming guns and players find the game too easy, so now we also have to buff enemies to match. However, the game isn't designed to handle these increase in difficulty. Players complain if we just add more health to enemies, so we have to do other things like increase enemy count, but adding more enemies increases performance issues. It's a cascading problem.

I consider nerfs a necessary evil. It's absurd to ask developers to always buff weapons and give them so much work when they could be developing actual additions to the game. Sometimes, a weapon really does need a nerf.

Don't worry guys, I'm sure this is just natural weather fluctuation and has nothing to do with us messing with the climate for the past however many decades. We couldn't possibly be suffering the consequences of our own actions (or at least the actions of a few with too much power). /s

It annoys me that the meme's quote is wrong. It's "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means".

Helldivers 2 uses nProtect GameGuard, which is a notorious kernel level anticheat. It is notorious for being problematic to uninstall and causing issues on systems it is installed in (such as straight up preventing some programs from running or causing them to crash and other terrible nonsense that should never happen). Combine that with the fact it's ineffective and the game is PvE, and it's nonsensical why it's around.

1. The video's comment section on its native site is... interesting.
2. I don't trust this guy. It feels like he's just slinging things at the wall that most people could intuit without any research. Yes, sometimes things backfire when you try to stifle them. Sometimes, however, the stifling works (otherwise dictators would have a much harder time ruling). That's just the way things go.
3. I'ma need some actual data to back up Youtube's anti-adblocker experiment succeeding/failing. People are so quick to jump on the 'it failed' or 'it succeeded' bandwagon but the truth is we simply don't know the result yet, and may not for a long while.
4. This could've been an email. This guy's delivery is sprawling and lacks conciseness.

While true, it's stupid that things are that way. They shouldn't be able to hide behind the idea that "we're not responsible for what our users publish, we're more like a public forum" while also having total ownership over that content.

Youtube had a space devoid of competition. The next guy doesn't. If the next guy wants to compete, they have to have all the features of Youtube or people will complain. Many of Youtube's current features cost money and weren't present when Youtube started.

The space is also more regulated now that Youtube exists, meaning the new guy has to follow regulations which normally costs money. When Youtube started, those regulations didn't exist, because Youtube didn't exist.

Youtube got big by building a city in an open field surrounded by nothing but open fields. The next guy has to build a city directly next to Youtube, follow all the same laws as Youtube, and ask you not to drive into Youtube.

Let's be real. A lot of people in the comments are saying "it's just a job", but that's irrelevant. Prostitution and stripping are both jobs, and I guarantee those who work in either have a vastly more difficult time finding people okay with that.

Is it impossible for the significant other to be okay with it? No. Will it be harder to have a relationship? Definitely.

Exclusives are the opposite of competition, though. It's why streaming platforms are so crappy, because if you want to watch what you like it's probably split between 2+ platforms and you have to pay for multiple. If you want to play the games you like, ultimately that's probably asking you either own multiple consoles or just be very patient and have a PC.

Also, not sure about Nintendo, the literal god of exclusives.

That's not how American courts work? The upper court can find issue with practically anything it likes.

A singleplayer open-world sandbox RPG in the vein of Skyrim, but you have powerful abilities on cooldowns like in MOBAs/Overwatch, command troops like in Mount & Blade/Blood of Steel/Conqueror's Blade, and can go around conquering cities/developing your own nation culturally/socially/technologically/economically/etc. like Civilization but more open-ended where you can do things like decide actual religious doctrine and encourage specific aesthetics/music/social norms.

Obviously, though, such a game is incredibly ambitious and I don't think it'll ever be made, as it takes the most unique and hardest-to-make parts of several other games and then combines them. Still, I'd love to play it.

I was a mod that walked away. The fact that so few mods had the balls to call Reddit on their bluff is disappointing but totally expected to me.

The whole point of the Reddit-style was that subreddits could be controlled by moderators and prevented from slipping into the same old tired town square-esque mess that arrives with popularity. I guarantee a mechanism to remove moderators would result in niche communities that get a surge in popularity winding up with the original moderators ousted because all the newcomers don't understand the community.

If you don't like how a community is run, you can start your own for completely free. That's how this works, you shouldn't be able to commandeer a community from the people who started it. If there's a truly problematic moderator, the new community will grow quickly.

@surely_not_a_bot will remember that

No?

There are crazies in every religion, and even agnostics and atheists have their fair share of crazies that go too far. It's also not a great idea to just not expose kids to religious folk (even if that was conceivable, which it's not given how many people are religious) and it's not a great idea to demand they keep it private. Preaching is too far, but it's perfectly acceptable for a teacher to tell their students what the teacher believes in and to wear iconography like a necklace of Jesus on the cross. In fact, I would much rather they be extremely public about what they believe in rather than be silent about it.

Even if it was a DDoS, they're the ones that decided to make the game vulnerable to such attacks in the first place. Even if they had valid reasons (which I find suspect), actions have consequences.

Sure. That doesn't mean it's right to do.