Ultimately, the cost to operate Twitch in Korea is prohibitively expensive and we have spent significant effort working to reduce these costs so that we could find a way for the Twitch business to remain in Korea. First, we experimented with a peer-to-peer model for source quality. Then, we adjusted source quality to a maximum of 720p. While we have lowered costs from these efforts, our network fees in Korea are still 10 times more expensive than in most other countries. Twitch has been operating in Korea at a significant loss, and unfortunately there is no pathway forward for our business to run more sustainably in that country.
Korean implements a "Sending Party Network Pays" tax.
Seems the blog author was taking the "cheap" option by trading time-to-deliver for cost.
I don't think anyone assumes when they take the cheap shipping option that they are eating a 10% chance the package never shows up. Nor mis-matched packages. Nor sudden calls from collections. Nor being re-labeled in the database as a 'distributor.'
Author gave time for them to work out the bugs between each attempt, and, seems each attempt went worse.
At the risk of getting dinged, I have a hard time thinking this is a real article.
Example 1: Changing `s` to `displayScore` doesn't fix the problem the code is using `p1`, `p2`, `p1N`, `p2N` AND defining a new `p`. WITH multiple ternaries and 3 mid-function returns.
Example 2: Reasonable, but now you have two functions with similar signatures. Reducing the number of indentation is always good.
Example 3: Creates ANOTHER layer of indentation. Without add'l context the code looks like it could be reduced to a series of inverted conditions with happy/golden-path style sequential if-s instead of 5 indentation deep.
Example 4: Pet peeve and chided by a lot of linters. Empty blocks are generally frowned upon. (You say: "If not equals DO" not "If equals don't do anything ELSE")
Example 5: Good in the context of testing, annoying in that it is a function with a single line. You'd probably be better off stubbing the User class all together. I mean you're already providing a User-type object.
Example 6: Great, 10/10 love it. Would remove the {} and just toss the Throws on the if-statement line itself but that's personal taste.
Example 7: Not awful, but I like to front-load my variable declarations so you can get error-handling out of the way at the start of the function then use those variables to do the computation later. More up front about saying: "Here are the items I will use later in this function"
Example 8: Probably not a simple refactor. If you aren't going to update all the locations in which an "Amount"/"Currency", you're creating an artisanal class for a single use.
Of course you'll need new maps, unit tokens, and scenarios custom to your clone.
I know it is easier said than done, but, rightsholders sit on obscure IP like a dragon on a hoard. If they DID make a new game based on this Squad Leader game, it probably wouldn't be the same game.
Quick edit from reading another post: If one just wants to play VASL looks like what one would want. Reimplementation of the rules in another engine, boom.
Some upset Twitter users isn't their entire customer base, but as a part of the story I enjoy reading the comments and how the community is responding.
Because 99% of our job is putting together standard logic that should've been included in most language's standard library?
Automate the rote software engineering so it's built upon a shared, healthy, secure, etc codebase... Leaving only the harder, more-fun 1% for us to noodle on instead.
Some advertisements are malicious attacks on your attention to build brand recognition and entice you to buy things you don't need.
However, I think advertising in itself isn't inherently evil. If a chess website served non-tracking, static (no-JS) banner ads about relevant products (maybe, specifically, chess products?) to offset costs, I don't see anything wrong with it. Of course the question is: "what is a relevant product to advertise next to chess?" Would... other board game advertisements be acceptable?
Gonna push back on this analogy. Ripping out features that cause more trouble than they're worth is like moving a dozer, back hoe, fertilizer spreader, etc off your property.
Average users appreciate all the extra real estate of their back yard! So much time to do the thing they enjoy, gardening.
Power users hate you, they used those power tools every day! They felt in control! Their backyard garden was meticulously crafted!
Ideally when you take their dozer, back hoe, etc, you put them into an easy to access shed out of sight from most users. Of course it's an engineering/design challenge to 1) create a shed (segment these features without adding complexity), 2) make it easy to use for power users ("wahh, I gotta click through 4 more options!"). They might be able to pull out their auger tractor, but it just isn't as easy as starting the auger tractor right where they left off.
Even with an analogy, it's hard to say: "1% of our users use this feature, tear it out." Even when it imposes > 1% of work on all future features/releases/testing.
To describe a microcosm of this line of thinking, let’s take Pokémon cards. Packs containing a (foil/holo) card weigh more. A sealed box of packs is theoretically a gold mine. But how do you establish that the presealed box wasn’t raided and resealed? A whole system of trusty discoverers and buyers play hand in hand.
Individual packs will always be looked at with doubt, since they’ve probably been weighed and sorted.
I don my tinfoil hat with you. EDA tools are intentionally opaque to maximize IP capture. I have no skin in the game, nor do I have hardware/circuit development experience... But every time I want to dabble as a Hobby-ist it's clear: "You're not allowed to experiment."
Starting that train now is quite difficult. Lots of inertia to overcome with pre-existing closed source tools being chosen by default at colleges and companies.
2) Same image, but I'm not quite sure Buzz is centered in the middle of the ... work plate? Glass? Others are a bit more aligned to the edges, but are instead offset in various directions. For aesthetics, what would prevent a hologram from being perfectly centered and rotated to the plate?
3) They all have a little stray hologram pixel in the top right corner of each hologram, intentional? Fixable? Shortcoming of the technique?
4) A lot of the plates look a little smudged/finger-printy. Is it possible to clean the hologram plates/film after "printing" to have a clean shiny surface?
5) I don't see an example of an image that has been printed corner-to-corner? How much of this hologram film has been applied? Is it possible to make a full plate hologram? And/or trim the edges afterwards? (It looks like glass plates, so... probably hard for a layperson to cut?)
6) Open source firmware? Gcode? Toolchain? Hacker friendly? (Ctrl-f Firm, Open, or Code resulted in 0 results.)
Just to end in a compliment sandwich, it's totally cool and would definitely have a place in budding maker's labs, and new niche stores! I could see the output being relatively popular on like... Etsy. Super affordable at $1,600 when stacked next to a 3D Printer, or Laser Cutter, etc. I love the idea and DO want one of my own... But trying to identify the shortcomings.
Why would a developer implement this? What incentives do they have, other than being able to say they did? Digital cards being locked to an account was the greatest achievement for TCGs in the past decade. Non-tradability is a feature.
This applies to every single form of game-based NFT. What incentive does a Game Developer have in implementing their items on the blockchain? So I can trade my WoW Health Potions for FFXIV Health Potions? In a kind world, when I'm tired of WoW I could safely transfer my wealth from WoW to FFXIV, but does Blizzard want that? Better to ensure lock-in. Further there will never be the case where a game like WoW would recognize an item from FFXIV as canonical and equal value. I wouldn't be able to buy a FFXIV health potion and use it in WoW.
The only games that will implement NFT items will do it as a gimmick. TCG, or normal game, or anything.
I have yet to see an actual compelling use case that solves a problem that game developers have. Remember, solving a problem a player has doesn't mean the incentives for game developers are aligned.
30% distribution fee is standard across so many things. Steam, AppStore, and it looks like Spotify as well.
Seems like the ones losing out are those that are signing record deals, giving over 41% (or 54%? The %s don't add up to 100 in the article,) to a label who... Just puts them on Spotify?
Spotify is in a good position to cut out record labels by working with artists directly.
I've been thinking about this a bit. Compare a 1million view YouTube video (arbitrary $3/CPM(1000 views), so $3000), take the 16% cut in the article and you get $480. So Gary Numan's work is roughly valued one less magnitude than a YouTube video. I think that's a shame, but, it's not that far off.
Now you could argue Music isn't the same as a Video, but in my mind Videos can be just as timeless and classic as a tune.
Streaming/advertising creates that nice race to the bottom which evens the playing field (a view is a view is a view, a listen is a listen is a listen, 100 or 100000 it's all the same,) but people who are used to entrenched interests keeping prices high will be shocked.
Why a watch? Why (ear/head)phones? Why a phone in the first place?
Rumors are that Apple is working on VR Glove & AR glasses.
They're taking things that people use every day and cramming as much functionality into software as their hardware will allow.
Sort of joking sort of not: Eventually there will people wearing full sets of Apple accessories, getting into their Apple car, driving to an Apple home... And all the technology will be seamless (or as seamless as they can make it based on their current track record.)
Korean implements a "Sending Party Network Pays" tax.