That’s a good point. I’ve seen bike lanes added successfully with some simple paint even.

Getting enough bike lanes to be useful is the tricky bit, but those bus mounted bike racks mad e a huge difference for me, since I could hop a bus to get through the unbikeable areas.

I would much rather have bike lanes though, and I would have more time to shop at local business is they had bike access, of course.

And I’m sure they understand that exposure also leads to more sales.

Why not both?

Because DRM misfires for a small percentage of paying customers.

Those paying customers, ironically, usually get help from the pirate community to get their game working.

Then they go back to paying for everything, because they still trust game studios more than pirates. Wait no, this last bit usually doesn’t happen.

Overall DRM prevents zero percentage of all privacy, while hassling a small percentage of paying customers.

Heh. Thoughtful post. But yeah. Income is a leading indicator of ability to build wealth. And rainfall is a leading indicator of whether the ground will be wet.

Neat.

Agreed, on why not both.

I prefer bikes for the independence and versatility.

But I empathize with the logic that for a lot of people, a bus pass is more attainable than buying learning to ride and maintaining a bike.

Plus, buses are crazy efficient for issues like parking and congestion - better even than bikes, which are already pretty great in those areas.

Also, I perceive that bus lines are maybe much cheaper to add than bike lanes. I’m not entirely sure about that, though.

You don’t have the lovely front bumper bike stackers?

We generally put this kind of thing into a chat window and have people ‘thumbs up’ the ones they want to vote for. It’s not elegant, but it’s quick and gets the job done.

I would love to see more lanes, but buses make a lot more sense.

The good news is that buses do lead to better bike access, since it’s easy to carry a bike in the front of a bus.

Don’t make me point to the sign with people standing on boxes in front of a fence.

This should be very easily solved with matchmaking lobby settings.

Anyway, most accessibility settings are either something every competitive player should be using anyway (reasonable color contrast settings, HUD tweaks for clarity) or things that only people who need them despately would ever use (remapping all buttons to be able to play using only a stick in the players mouth, because they have no hands).

This seems to me like a total non-issue. And in the very few cases it is, the ranked lobbies can just diable that setting.

The backlash was probably because for you and I a harmed pvp experience is a “could happen” while for a bunch of gamers the lack of accessibility is a daily undeniable part of their reality. For some people, games are a critical sanity-saving retreat from the rest of their life. Let’s let them have their tweaks outside of ranked play.

Accessibility feature enabled: “You can just kill this escort quest NPC and go enjoy the rest of the game.”

I hope so. As someone who will use the accessibility features, I don’t mind separate badges at alll. I don’t need the same badge as a speed-runner. I just want to play the game.

Nah. Oracle is trying to pivot from “people noticed we hate humans” into “Like Microsoft, we embrace open source now”. I’m glad to see it, but also very skeptical that it represents a long term change.

Edit: Oracle’s stance on basic accessibility seemed really bad, to me, for a long time. I don’t actually think they hate humans…probably.

Except Oracle didn’t create either of those, Sun Microsystems did. Oracle bought Sun, and then made both products worse.

I’ve found diving deep into retrogames is great for my similar situation.

Games from the 80s, 90s and even some from the 00s are often designed to be played in much shorter play sessions.

Great points.

To add for OP: I’ve found that I can scratch the “play and progress with friends” itch with games like Torchlight II, which doesn’t have the same kind of addiction triggers.

Yeah. I’ve always thought timed open source was probably a sweet spot, but I don’t have a lot of trust that companies will actually follow through on the open license at the end, so it doesn’t buy my goodwill just yet.

Fair enough. I’m just getting a little tired of our monopolist companies buying every competitor while burning through venture capital and then claiming they need to raise prices to “survive”.

All great points. That said, no one should feel sympathy for Disney’s profit margins.

They can and should spend less on anti-piracy measures to become more profitable.

And Disney could be 100% profit, overnight, while paying their actors and writers handsomely, if they just license their content to a streaming service that knows what they are doing.

The goal of AI is fictional, and there’s no solid evidence today that it will ever stop being fiction.

What at have today are stupid learning algorithms that are surprisingly good at mimicing intelligent people.

The most apt comparison today is a particularly clever parrot.

I’m all for having the discussion about how to handle AI when we have it, but it’s bad faith to apply it to what we have today.

Critically, what we have today will never ever go on strike, or really make any kind of correct moral decision on it’s own. We must treat it like dumb automation, because it is dumb automation.