Or pay a fee >$10 for transferring the domain to a different registrar.
If you have questions, feel free to ask.
such low population density requires cars to be used
As someone living in a much less dense area, I wholeheartedly disagree. Even just a single tram stop with >=bi-hourly frequency near the center could make that entire area car-free if the people weren't car-brained. That area looks like it'd be bikable in <10min side-to-side, so most people could probably even walk to such a tram stop.
(That tram would actually need to go somewhere but that's part of a larger system's problem, not of this hypothetical neighbourhood.)
Bringing a game to a new platform is phenomenally expensive - 7 or 8 figures for a large game. It’s not just the port, it’s testing, it’s updating docs, it’s updating support people. That is money someone has to invest up-front, so the people with the money need to know they are going to get a reasonable return on that money compared to building a new game
In this case, it really isn't. The platform they need to support is Windows before and after. No change there.
The only actual change they need to do is set a setting in their anti-cheat middleware to allow Proton and distribute the required binaries. Obviously a bit of QA that that part actually works.
The rest is up to WINE/Proton/Valve and supporting systems and 99.9% of that should already work. We as the broader Linux community have full control over those, so there's no further input required from the game dev after that.
It's maybe 1-2 dev days, perhaps a week. That works out to 3-4 figures, maybe 5. I suspect that'd be offset in the first 5min of even just announcing Linux support.
And one off-site (or something..)
In many European countries, you have legal recourse here. They're not allowed to make arbitrary decisions like this in most places here. You could sue them to get your account re-instated.
Still, do you see how many trees there are? That place must've still looked nice and was certainly transformable into a really nice place without unreasonable effort.
Now, it's basically a wasteland.
There are different "levels" to reproducibility and there's also a distinction between Nix/Nixpkgs and NixOS.
You can talk about r13y in terms of functional r13y (same behaviour, though even here you can differentiate between "roughly same behaviour" and "exact same behaviour") and binary bit-for-bit r13y.
Nix/Nixpkgs are about producing individual binaries reproducibly. Functional r13y is the most important but binary r13y is a great boon for security testing as it makes verification simple and simplicity trumps when it comes to security.
NixOS is about building functionally reproducible OS configuration. Because it uses Nixpkgs, the binaries contained in the OS inherit Nixpkgs' binary r13y. As Nixpkgs becomes more binary-reprodicible, so does NixOS and here we can see the point where binary r13y of the packages in the minimal ISO has reached a point where it's thought to be fully reproducible.
The real meat of NixOS is functional r13y though; both kinds: You can reproduce a system with the exact same behaviour from a given Nixpkgs and NixOS config and you can use the same NixOS config with different revisions of Nixpkgs to produce systems which produce roughly the same behaviour.
In general nix packages are not reproducible in the sense that the output will be bit-for-bit identical.
A large amount aren't but, OTOH, a large amount also are because Nix does almost everything it can to set up an environment without easily preventable sources of non-determinism such as general filesystem access, networking or other means of communication with some uncontrolled system.
Original price doesn't matter, you need to compare it against current new offerings. A drive like that, I'd buy for 8-10€/TB at max. because current new HDD pricing is 15€/TB at the low end.
What you also need is SMART output. Watch out for high uncorrectable errors, writes and whatever. I'd never buy a drive without having seen its SMART data.
Absolutely.
I'd agree but I don't see how that makes a difference. My point was that the visible part could be served by even just one tram station. If there are more such parts, you'd obviously need tram stops for those aswell. (More tram stops would realistically be necessary anyways.)
Me neither. Point was that it'd be possible for those people to reasonably get where they need to go without any cars involved with as little infrastructure as a single tram stop.