A Fairphone 4. Got it at launch and it’s a terribly buggy mess.

Describing all the issues would make a huge wall of text.

The sad part is that the hardware is ok. But they don’t seem to have any software QA at all.

My goal was to carry it until 2027, when replacable batteries will become standard, but since I can’t even use the phone for calling, I am trying to at least carry it until the Galaxy S55 launches.

A squadron of military planes is a bit hard to come by as a private person.

But I wonder if people would also be that fascinated after 25+ years if I flew some DJI drones at 1-2km height in the night with bright LEDs on their bottom and dropped some pyrotechnics from them.

This has been confirmed independently multiple times as two groups of A-10 military aircraft dropping flares with parachutes for training purposes.

And still you see videos titled “Still no answers 26 years after the lights appeared over the valley”. Well, no answer that these guys want to hear.

And what it looked like is quite easy to check, since there are tons of photographs of that incident.

I said: Code changes are easy, all the other things in regards to supporting playing on Linux (anticheat, support requests, testing, …) is hard.

You said: But code changes are easy because steam has libraries to unify distribution.

Do you see the problem here?

What are you going to tell me next? That code changes are easy?

If you have the time to do that, it would probably work at first until the staff recognizes you and either doesn’t let you repeat that move or even outright bans you from purchasing there.

No further trouble expected, but don’t expect this to work for long for you.

Did you read the second line of my post?

The code changes aren’t the issue.

I think, people here look at it from the wrong side.

The code changes required for Linux support aren’t the issue.

But if they support Linux, they have to support Linux. This is not some student’s first indie game, but instead a massive game with up to 290 million monthly active users. That’s 3.7% of the whole world’s population! (And it’s also more than the number of total Linux users.)

So supporting Linux means they need to test on at least all currently maintained versions of maybe the top 20 or so distros on all sorts of hardware configurations. That would increase their testing costs by around a factor of 20.

They also need to support customers if they have problems. Considering the variability of Linux configurations, chances are high that this comparatively small segment of players will consume an aproportional amount of difficult support requests.

And lastly, if the Linux version of the game has some serious bugs on some setup, it might likely be that all these Linux users think the game is shit and start talking badly about it.

So it’s just a simple cost calculation: Does Linux support increase or decrease the total profit?

And if the variables change, the calculation changes with it. Exactly as Sweeny said in his post. People like Sweeny don’t care about ideals or about which OS they prefer. They only care about money.

And the revelation that a CEO likes money and dislikes risk isn’t exactly hard to figure out.

I’m not saying that it’s good, but top capitalists tend to be capitalists.

And in the end, I’m pretty sure someone who has all the business figures and frequently has to defend those in front of the shareholders probably knows much better what makes business sense than any of us. Someone like him goes where the money flows.

Why not both?

My toilet.

If you do let me know! Just curious how well the building instructions work.

And if you have trouble, feel free to PN me here or write in the discussion section of the GitHub repo.

https://github.com/Dakkaron/Fairberry

I keep getting asked if I’d sell these. But becoming a software engineer by trade has already ruined hobby programming for me, so I will not ever make that hobby into a job.

And wouldn’t that completely shift worldwide powerbalanes for centuries to come?

For example, would WW2 have happened if France had been a global superpower instead of a pushover?

Would the american revolution have happened with another colonial ruler?

Without that example, would the french revolution have happened?

Without both revolutions, would democracy be a thing by now, or would we still have totalitarian monarchies?

You know the butterfly effect? It’s the same except we aren’t killing a butterfly but instead one of the superpower nations of that time.

Of course it wouldn’t stop colonialization, but it would change the future quite a lot.

• No English-speaking superpowers/English as lingua franca
• No Commonwealth
• No wide-spread anglo common law based legal systems
• Superpowers/alliances would be totally mixed up up to now.
• China could have developed totally different due to them not constantly losing against the English.
• No colonialization of the Welsh, Scots, Irish by the English

I think that should shake up the timeline quite a bit.

I was focussing on changing the timeline, not on deterring nations from doing something. Without English colonializers, there would have certainly been other colonizers, but e.g. the whole China situation would have likely been very different. There would not be a dominant anglo culture right now. No English-speaking USA, no English-speaking Australia, no large countries with an anglo common law-based legal system.

It would change the timeline quite a bit.

Take the current highest-yield nuclear bomb and destroy England right before the begin of their collonial era.

Generally speaking, I believe removing a global superpower just before they do their world-changing thing is probably going to have the biggest effect on the timeline.

Siegmund Freud would recommend picking up cocaine to replace smoking.

(Ok, he actually used it as a substitute for alcoholics and continued doing so after his first client died of a cocain overdose, but close enough.)

You are right, of course, that most revolutions don’t have communism as their goal.

But all successful ones lead to totalitarian states.

I find it difficult to judge the Zapatistas, same as the Spanish Revolution and the Makhovshchina, since they all nevever matured (or in the chase of the Zapatistas haven’t matured yet).

Generally speaking, during a revolution, the revolutionists (is that a word?) promise the people everything, because they need to gather support. Once they have driven out the old power/government and actually control the area, they usually tend to shift. This pattern occurs not only for communist revolutions, but for all types of revolution.

Generally speaking “Support me becoming a totalitarian dictator” isn’t really a good rallying call.

I’m not saying it can’t happen, only that it consistently hasn’t happened so far.

It’s kinda weird though that some people call for violent revolutions over what amounts to semantics.

Sadly, history has taught us, that there are only very few revolutions that end up with a more liberal political system. The Zaparistas are the first instance where I heard of something like that, and I am not nearly informed enough on the specifics of their system and how it works out in real-life to comment on them.

All other revolutions that I know about usually ended with a Robespierre, a Lenin/Stalin, a Hitler, a Mao Zedong or any of the hundreds of military dictatorships that came into power over the last century.

Not many people are able to first amass enough power to be stronger than the regular government and then idealistic enough to let go of all that power again.

No, you didn’t try.

Ok, that makes sense now. You don’t understand statistics.

And you don’t understand the difference between having laws for rare cases and being constantly paranoid about rare cases.

Please learn some statistics, especially stochastics and probability theory. If you understand the basics, look up some statistics about what you are talking about and then we’ll continue talking.

That’s the question. At what point is a society with democracy, laws and a police still an anarchistic, stateless society?

To me this quickly overlaps with a libertarian democracy with direct democracy on the local levels, just with a different name. It’s kinda scary to me how quickly the left and the right converge here.

Post-scarcity is a nice concept, but that will never happen. Many countries in Europe are effectively post-scarcity if you only consider basic needs.

Here in Austria, for example, we have a thing called “Mindestsicherung” which anyone is eligeable for if they are an Austrian citizen or have lived here for >5 years if they earn less than €1050 a month (median income is €2240). What happens then is the state pays them extra money so that together with their income they earn €1050 (even if you have no income at all). Then you get a flat in public housing and they pay for that too. Also you get free public transport passes, don’t have to pay a TV license and get a free basic phone and internet contract. You even get a vouchers for clothing if you need new clothing.

Living, food, clothing, mobility, communication and internet are all taken care of. That’s post-scarcity on the basic level.

I have a good friend who suffers from severe depression. He’s been living off Mindestsicherung for the last 10 years. He doesn’t have a lot of money but enough to go around and still have some money left for hobbies.

Still capitalism is alive and well here with only a low rate of long-term unemployed people. Because people don’t only work to save themselves from starving, but because they want a higher living standard and more cool gadgets. So for money to not be important, everyone would have to have everything that they can think of.