Of course they’re implemented properly in Chrome. They wrote those standards, and pushed them through without review. Hence why technologies like WebRTC and simple gradients had about 8 half-working implementations in Chrome, while the later IE team put a hand up and said “Hang on, let’s implement this the right way and agree on a spec.”

The way you describe IE-specific hacks was true up through around IE9. Once they got to Edge, they retired importance of major versions and insisted people auto-update their browser, getting companies off the idea of retaining an old browser for “compatibility”.

They were doing the right thing for a short time before the end. I suppose a lot of people didn’t even see that period.

I’ve got a Kobo. Never spent money in their store yet but I love it.

Right now, Chrome is basically IE6. It rushes in standards with little compliance, bloats your memory, and everyone is forced to use it. All browsers are just skins, and if Google’s recent Android moves are any indication, they’ll likely close off source at some point so they can load it through with spyware.

In terms of making a bad situation slightly better, I’d be in favor of MS re-vamping their browser division. It has little to do with AI or murdering Palestinians though, so I doubt they will.

One of the last things I used to respect about Microsoft was when they kept up the development of their own rendering engine, even as Chrome ran away with its popularity. IE6 was a monster, but for a time MS was doing a good job as an underdog by pushing standards compliance. Even if it wasn’t as nice as Firefox, it was important to have more horses in the game of competing browsers rather than creating a monoculture around Chrome.

Needless to say, the Edge appearing in this contest is nothing like what I ever had hope for.

I’m left-footed. Do they come in lefties?

So what should be the word we use for “media that depicts positive social ideologies?” Apparently “woke” includes the definition “while being super preachy about it.”

Of course, in that split, it’s also common people will call something “preachy” when a gay guy is there, and doesn’t even waste the viewer’s time. It happened to that horrible conservative animated show, as well.

Both scenarios I give involve the parent attempting to address the problem the child has. In the first one, the child had to ask for a way around an age blocker. The parent was never going to say no to the request because they’re not going to make the case that the child “doesn’t deserve to use devices”. You could even theorize that the last part, discovering “HotChat”, happens on their own time.

In the second one, the child was advised to consult an adult before using a chat program. The answer to their problem was a direct refusal - a NO from the parent, and an explanation as to why not to proceed - rather than any form of direct help. I’m even positing this second scenario starts from the child being left to their devices.

I’d need a much more detailed description of what a universal, government-driven, “simple explanation for first time setup” would be, for all operating systems on the market: Forcing all users to make admin accounts, store a password, and then create a child account; and trusting that people won’t take simple paths for it, when most children are granted their own devices.

I’m very much in favor of giving parents tools for those things. But the way security works is, it will always be at war with convenience. As soon as people lean towards shortcuts that circumvent the intent of security (because not everyone’s lives are based around these secure systems), the tight-gripped approach to security fails out. We want parents to choose to learn these tools on their own time, not simply have them presented as a roadblock to access.

In the normal case where a moderate/low-tech mom buys a child an iPad, there is no step at which they’re likely to recognize it has an “admin setup”, or configure a password. They unwrap their christmas gift, and they’re likely the one to figure it out.

I can easily picture this discussion in a household strangled for time.

“Mom! I tried to use that new tablet, but it wouldn’t work!”
“Okay…sweetie, I’m running late for my shift, what’s the problem?”
“It says I’m…that I must be 18 or older to akkept the terms-”
“Did you give it your age?”
“My birthday? Yeah. Does it give you like presents on your birthday?”
“Put in…put in 1980 for the year. It’s fine. I gotta go. Love you.”
"Really? Okay. …Hey, it worked! I can play Fortnite now!-
slam
“Huh. What’s HotChat…?”

Versus this: (What the website proposes)

“Mom? Is it okay if I chat with people on the internet?”
“Chat with who? You mean like your friends? Is Derek from school on there?”
“Well there’s this thing that came installed on the tablet. It says I can chat with people on the internet. But I should ask first.”
“Let me see. …Sweetie, this doesn’t look like something that’s for you. We don’t know if the people you’re talking to are strangers, or even dangerous people.” “Ohhh.”
“I can…I gotta go, but I’ll try to find you some apps that will let you chat with kids from school. Okay?”
“Aw. Okay. I can still play Fortnite though, right?”
“I…yeah. Fortnite is fine. Don’t put anything on there without talking to me, you promise?”
“I promise.”

The site even backs this up: That open communication about dangers, rather than hard, automatic restrictions tends to lead to healthier upbringing from kids. Setting up fully automated barriers just leads to creative workarounds, since ultimately, adults and businesses will demand convenience - and kids will find ways to get access to it too.

Funny thing is, I knew a long time ago it was a boomer shooter. I was miffed that it boiled down “detective work” to gunning down whole rooms of people.

But, on a second look, I’m surprised to see there’s a lot of genuine worldbuilding, exploration, and conversations to go into the mystery! Sure, gunning down hordes is still used as the central play, but I like when it’s not overly reductive.

I think the big counter example to that is Fortnite. Battle royales were already pretty successful, and then Fortnite (previously a fort zombie defense game) pivoted to a battle royale, and the rest is history.

So it’s hard to say it can’t be done. Certainly most of them are a waste of time.

Apologies; didn’t read that far when I saw it. But to be fair, your exact quote was “Requires Windows”, not “Requires Windows or Linux”. You’re sort of the odd one out on macs.

I’ll appreciate that it’s hard to be a devil’s advocate on an argument and provide a nuanced take. But I will say the points made on the Ageless Linux website demonstrate why that’s an issue, primarily around how you’re teaching kids from their first time on the internet to lie. It really doesn’t matter whether this happens through a drivers’ license pic or a DOB selector.

Wait, what? The game is Steam Deck verified. How does it require Windows?

“I’ll just hold off on the termination notice until you’ve finished writing it.”

The only caution with that is, private companies have a LOT of power and control right now. Easy to argue they shouldn’t, of course.

An example might be Visa enforcing “content guidelines” on any paid content on Steam providing NSFW games. Like, say, any game that acknowledges gay people exist. Payment processors and similar companies have claimed that’s a freedom of speech stance.

But yes, we can definitely keep it simple in forum communities constantly under human enforcement.

One thing I appreciate about the game is the natural enforcement of rules. Usually, in a game we see strict, coded enforcement: You’re not punished for attacking a teammate, you either physically can’t, or you’re removed from the game when it’s demonstrated to be intentional.

In Arc Raiders, if there’s no witnesses, you CAN get away with murdering another player. It comes with risks, for instance people could hear and deduce the situation. I think having that as a possibility actually makes the friendly interactions feel more positive. It’s more of an intentional choice.

There’s perhaps something interesting to say about game design mechanics there - where something exists in the game but is not actively rewarded or encouraged nor punished.

Yeah, but that doesn’t support indie devs.

Do you seriously pirate indie games? Against AAA there’s at least a sense of inflammatory rebellion. What’s the thought process there?

I’m not uniformly opposed to subscriptions as a concept. That almost goes as far as “paying money for products is anti consumer”.

Even when it comes to a smaller sum, I see the attraction to companies: It’s reliable revenue, which makes business and payment of employees more stable.

That said, it relies on the consumer constantly knowing they have the option of leaving without “lock in” persuasion, and the product being decent value. Obviously, we’ve seen hundreds of anti-consumer subscriptions.

There’s certainly been some industry-wide brain drain, especially when it comes to low-level engineering. When you think about the memory-level mastery people exhibited to get things running on the PlayStation 1, it feels incomparable to today.

Those people enjoyed being pioneers and recognized that was the only way to achieve their dream; but they’re also valued so highly today (picture publishers willing to buy out entire other publishers to get hold of a game engine), chances are they will never have a simple job.

Worse, some MBAs don’t even recognize their value; and wrongly believe they can be easily replaced. There’s probably some ecological comparative example where a great oak is central to the ecosystem of a whole country, and a business developer claims “We can bulldoze that for farmland and import fertilizer, right?”

This misses one of the classic “FeMinIsT AgEnDaS”, censoring all of the porn so that nobody can jack off.

It’s just now hitting me, the reason they (faux feminists) target that issue is to create a large faction of frustrated men that hate feminism, hence creating more class warfare.