Lets see; a phone os no one used, and ad on installed without user permision as a tie-for a TV show, browser integration with a thirdparty bookmarking service that should have been an optional addon, a VPN, an abborted browser based video confercing service based on open standards that they killed for non obvious reasons, a bunch of social justice initiatives, an email masking/forwarding service killing their addon APIs in favor of googles more limited api.
To be fair to the vpn product, at least they did it through a partnership with mullvad, one of the least-terrible (not even in the same ballpark as the likes of nordvpn, etc) commercial vpn service providers in existence.
The announced StarFox 64 remake is, on a very strict count, the second time they have remade StarFox 64.
If you count StarFox Zero, which is kind of a remake but also not, we are on our third remake of StarFox 64. A game, mind you, which was kind of a remake of the original StarFox on Super Nintendo.
There's the rub, I miss. Notepad++ is thoroughly a Windows app. Linux and Mac natives have no appetite for one of the most thoroughly Windows-ass Windows app around. Switchers, sure. But take me as an example. I've been on a Mac since 2007. At this point I'm a native. I'm not even aware of what Notepad++ really does.
Well, I am a "switcher" since 20 years, so rather OS agnostic. I regulaty switch between linux and windows (and chromeos) and sometimes mac and ideally I want all my apps to work the same, no matter the OS.
Denuvo is there to prevent piracy within the first 90 days of release. Something like 60 to 80% of a game’s revenue is during that period. They don’t care that it’s eventually cracked, and they absolutely do not care about performance.
Not strictly after 90 days, but Denuvo is usually removed after the peak sales period for a game. It's really at a publisher's discretion when to remove it, as the sales model for Denuvo is that you have to continue paying for it on a subscription basis to keep it active.
This is untrue. Yes Denovo got removed from some games relatively early, but mostly it was long after this "peak sales window" I would have to make a list of how long it took for games, and I am too lazy to even ask AI, but I think it took years in some cases and a lot of community outrage for the devs to remove it, and they did not just remove it after some peak sales window but when the games were actually cracked and the steam forums were flooded with pissed of people who realized pirates had a better experience then actual buyers. THEN they removed it.
So it's more like after they were cracked rather than some time window, sometimes these may have been overlap.
1 year after release is for sure not "peak sales window".
Having the game wishlisted is a signal of players waiting for a sale, or future patches/correction, or simply not bothering to cleanup wishlist, not a signal of someone is eager to pirate the game.
- Devil May Cry 5: released March 2019, Denuvo removed February 2020
- Forspoken: released January 2023, Denuvo removed July 2023
- Final Fantasy XVI: released September 2024, Denuvo removed March 2024
- Dead Rising Deluxe Remaster: released September 2024, Denuvo removed September 2025
These are just a few examples, there are many more. I can't say whether it was removed because the contract ran out or another reason, but, as I said, Denuvo demonstrably is often removed 6–12 months after PC release.
I said Denuvo is "often" removed 6–12 months after release. Often means many times, frequently. I have given you examples that this has happened many times, so I'm satisfied with the wording I used.
You said it "usually" lasts 2–4 years. Usually means most of the time. What I said is not incompatible with what you said, but in any case, you've presented no data or evidence that Denuvo is kept for 2+ years most of the time.
This isn't a good faith argument. You made a claim that has now been shown to be false, and now you're trying to reverse the burden of proof for your claim.
Whatever the pedantic meaning of "often" is in the context of this conversation, one thing is clear, your statement that Denuvo switched to a subscription service is entirely unsubstantiated. If you have evidence to back up your claim then the burden is squarely on you at this point to provide it.
Why should the young kids pay 20-30-40 dollars a month for Spotify to listen to AI-made music when you can make your own AI-made music with but a prompt from a free tier?
The fact is, AI is a thermonuclear device that everybody has at their disposal. That changes the power dynamics completely, and it is incorrect to believe we will maintain our exact commercial relationships but + AI.
If nothing else, to have a shared experience with other people. A lot of the value for people is derived from the fact that they can talk about the same song with someone else. If it's all individualized you lose that.
Also assumes all AI music will have perfect execution and there is no distinction between any of it outside of personal preference, otherwise there is a reason to pay to listen to something else that is higher quality than what you can make
> If nothing else, to have a shared experience with other people. A lot of the value for people is derived from the fact that they can talk about the same song with someone else. If it's all individualized you lose that.
While I agree this is a valuable part of the human experience, I don't think the average person would recognise it as one. Without it, they might start to feel a general lack of connection to the people around them, but probably wouldn't be able to trace where it came from.
It makes me wonder what other human cultural experiences we've lost over the years, which are causing us a kind of collective mental anguish in their absence.
And, depending on why you listen to music your relationship with AI generated music will probably shift. If it's a quiet day and I want to listen to something deeply I will reject anything AI generated as I want art that someone thought was important... but if I'm just craving background noise while I work then I care a lot less.
We're edging up on a big classical question: "What is art without meaning?"
No one has yet to turn a profit from LLMs. I don't understand why we need to intently look at everybody's pricing, when the most important number is instead their losses. That is the number that tells us what they're really doing.
Why would these 3rd-party providers be taking losses? Together, Novita, etc... are not losing money on inference services, they are profiting. You can easily do napkin math with current & last gen Nvidia cards to calculate cost to host/serve these models. I would also doubt that any 1st-party providers like OpenAI and Anthropic lose money on per token billing. There is almost undoubtedly healthy margin being made on that.
How are we supposed to trust these charts when it can't even be bothered to specify which Apple Silicon chip it's testing? The Mac Mini comes in two versions.
The different versions have different names. One is called M4, the other is called M4 Pro. The name tells you they tested the former and it has only the one CPU configuration.
The Pro has more P-cores and fewer E-cores (8/4 or 10/4 instead of 4/6), but even the 10/4 configuration starts at $1399 instead of $799 and for the extra $600 you can move from the 9700X to the 9950X3D (16 P-cores) and have $200 left over.
If the price is too low and fields stop being exploited because they're unprofitable, you reduce the volume produced each day. That means there's scarcity with a low price, and you're back at trying to switch en energy source because you just can't get oil.
That moves prices upward, because people are willing to pay more, but increasing production is not like turning the faucet in your home. It takes time. This is the instability of oil production that OPEC tries to prevent, to keep the world hooked on readily available just cheap enough oil.
In a free market "scarcity with a low price" is a contradiction. If there's scarcity the prices will be high, not low. And nobody's going to be reducing production if the prices are high.
> instability of oil production that OPEC tries to prevent
First of all, if the goal is to prevent instability OPEC is doing a terrible job. Secondly, a cartel is not needed to prevent price instability, as demonstrated by the hundreds of other commodity markets around the world which are not controlled by cartels engaging in price fixing schemes.
As with any cartel, the purpose of OPEC is to maximize profits for its members, artificially fixing the price of oil at a level higher than what it would otherwise be in a free market not controlled by a cartel. Price stability is a side effect of that, not the goal.
> First of all, if the goal is to prevent instability OPEC is doing a terrible job.
I mentioned this upthread, the instability OPEC is trying to prevent is civil unrest from not being able to fund their social programs and governments. They need a price that puts them in the black and the rest of the world will pay. If it was a free market the fracking boom would still be raging and oil would be $30/bbl. Many gulf nations would fall apart if oil was at that price for a long period of time hence the price manipulation. (I'm not sure how they got the frackers to ease up, some say many of the frackers were bought out by OPEC members and their wells capped but that's just conspiracy afaik)
reply