It's never worked for me either, but I don't find them too intrusive in most streams.
That said if I'm watching a Warzone tournament I usually just pop out the mini player in Firefox's PIP and listen to that. They get their money and I get to keep watching.
Sounds less like the problem is sports and more like the problem is school is also universal daycare.
The contemporary Modern Warfare series is a remake of the original series. At least a general new take on a lot from that series. It isn't 1:1 by far.
Instead of letting you launch each game individually, or creating a general launcher that you start and then pick the game you want to play... They chose to force players to launch MW2 as a fake hub, and in that game's main menu, click the MW3 option.
The article says you can tell because apparently if you want to play MW2 you just pick the game type and it starts starving for a match. If you want to play MW3 you have to wait as MW2 shuts down and you wait for MW3 to start, after you already waited for MW2 to start initially.
Like I said in another post:
Seems like a good time to remind everyone just a few months ago he took two active usernames from their users without warning. Both @x and @music were in use and taken by Musk with no warning and no recompense.
At this rate I see it as completely possible that someone buys one, and the first time they don't update within whatever Musk feels like is "too long" that day, he takes it back with no warning.
Seems like a good time to remind everyone just a few months ago he took two active usernames from their users without warning. Both @x and @music were in use and taken by Musk with no warning and no recompense.
At this rate I see it as completely possible that someone buys one, and the first time they don't update within whatever Musk feels like is "too long" that day, he takes it back with no warning.
I forgot where I saw someone else suggest it... But if you really want to win over shoppers this Black Friday? Don't run a week of discounted TVs. Discount groceries.
I just don't see it happening. People have been suggesting they create "VideoHub"/"MediaHub" for years, as they're the rare company established in free-access video and also able to compete on the basis of having a (presumably) profitable enough service to keep them afloat through any rough patch. Though I'll certainly agree, it would be incredibly interesting.
You're obviously right. But it's funny to me; I find it easy to imagine a world where staying independent and hosting your own stuff was seen as cooler. Instead of YouTube and Google Buzz, we ran RSS clients akin to Outlook and Thunderbird. They torrent and seed media we're subscribed to while we're at work or class. It's saved on a home server. We walk in and simply toss it up on our desktop or TV. (Or maybe a mobile client streams from your home server over the Internet or over your home Wi-Fi if you're at home )
And if you visited the website instead of YouTube's recommendations, The creator just adds a few RSS feeds on the backend to pull thumbnails from, of other creators' sites they enjoy.
Crazy how easy it is to daydream though, when I'm not the one putting the work in.
I'm not arguing that Twitter is a good platform; I left it back in November for Mastodon and I've been happy with the switch. And if publishers want to run accounts labeled as "articles by Person A" and "articles on Topic B", (to essentially make them user-friends feeds, instead of asking newbies to learn how to add RSS,) I think that's great!
I'm just saying if a journalist (or any creator really,) is going to be active on social media, that it's worth to work for the best interest as much as possible. Cultivating their circle on a neutral (between them and their publisher) platform is better for them than working exclusively on a platform owned by their publisher, locking in everything they do socially there. Be that Mastodon, IG, or whatever fits them and their style.
I absolutely get you; you'd think companies would want this. However employees probably shouldn't want this. It's generally probably better for them that they work for their own brand when possible, so I'm hesitant to suggest this become a thing.
The fear is a practice called "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" (or EEE). It's been used by tech companies before: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish
It, in theory, could work like this:
-
Meta embraces ActivityPub in its tech in an attempt to garner good will and make it easy for users to transition to Threads.
-
Meta extends on ActivityPub by saying "oh we're just adding a few things that make this better for our users (on our service) but we're still supporting ActivityPub!
-
Meta then extinguishes ActivityPub support, and severally hobbles AP, after they secure enough users to be happy and think AP offers no real competition anymore.
Then the enshittification process begins, by moving the focus from users to other interests (usually advertisers) at the expense of users. And eventually to the platform owners, at the expense of advertisers. Though I guess they'll skip the middle step, being a public company?
I would be curious about the feasibility of a "performance mode" that was basically "reboot you into a "single program" mode". I assume it would be unreasonable given so much software relies on the tools modern OSes provide, unless the software itself was made with this in mind.
You'd imagine some giant like Adobe would figure out a way to run dedicated machines, given they have so much software that uses lots of resources. But then, as best as I would find it for games, I imagine most people don't want to give up alt-tabbing to their web browsers.
Edit: Besides. The real benefits would hit until you were coding to the metal anyway, right? Assuming that's still feasible too.