conciselyverbose

It should be illegal to sell a TV that doesn't have a full set of controls (not that dogshit little stick thing) on the front or bottom.

The back is not a valid place for inputs.

It will never get ruled on because the core concept is so obscenely unconstitutional that it doesn't matter.

It means Sony has the rights to make X-men games, not that they won't be on PC. And they can still license X-men characters in other games, as well, provided they aren't exclusive to platforms that aren't playstation.

In the wrong how?

If you don't believe in copyright, whatever, but IA was doing something blatantly violating the law and getting away with it until they decided to flamboyantly draw attention to themselves by removing the veneer of legality and just giving away unlimited copies.

I think sorting out actual quality reviews is harder than people think. Even something like Steam, where the cumulative user rating is relatively respected, surface a lot of junk reviews, because people respond to meme-ing and jokey shitposts more than actual high quality reviews. The signals even for a behemoth like Amazon to train an AI on just really aren't amazing. I know fakespot looks for outright fraud Amazon doesn't, but I think part of their success is that they're not the benchmark cheaters are trying to beat. In any case, "genuine" reviews and "quality" reviews aren't the same thing, and the latter is really hard to measure.

I think a more robust set of curation tools would have some value. Flipboard has been mentioned a bit lately for articles, and while I haven't used it, my impression is that the premise is that you subscribe to curated lists of different interests. Something like that for reviewers who catch the eye of curators could be interesting for a federated book platform.

My main issue with the article is the premise that "professional" reviewers are objectively any higher quality on average than user reviews. A sizable proportion of them are very detached from what real people care about. I absolutely critically read non-fiction, and am somewhat judgy if a certain rigor isn't applied, but for fiction? How is that fun? It's OK for a story just to be cheap fun. It's OK for different authors to have different writing styles and different levels of attention to detail and different levels of grittiness to their stories. There is absolutely actual bad writing out there, and some gets published, but a story not being for you doesn't mean that voice doesn't connect with someone else. A lot of book critics are huge snobs.

Pretty much any one with a comparable track record directing iconic games does have that recognition, though.

The list of developers that known is small because the list of developers that have that level of success is small.

He makes good games. Polished ones, too.

Even MGS5, which was pretty clearly pushed out before he wanted it to be and broke him up with Konami, was extremely technically sound, just not filled out as much as it should have been.

I've tried it.

It doesn't have lists at all, and while the tag sorting is nice, adding your own tags in bulk to replicate a list is entirely untenable.

I don't consider anything short of Goodread's table of all your books to select and make bulk changes remotely viable, and even that took me well over an hour the first time.

Seriously. I'd love an alternative that's anywhere close to basic functionality, but this article is beyond stupid.

Yes, allowing people outside whatever stupid circle to review books and have their reviews considered by other people is a good thing.

Now, a lot of the reviews are trash because a lot of people have stupid opinions on books. Some people just want something to trash and have reviews that reflect that. But that's equally true of "real critics" and their opinions are often just as bad.

Edit: I wonder if I could make a browser extension that recognizes book objects on one of the alternatives and lets you bulk select and make changes that way, replicating the flow or function calls they use now.

Bookwyrm sounds great, but actually using it to organize past reading and just re-make lists that already exist is absolutely brutal.

What you're describing is no longer a human civilization filled with humans. Free will is a core to what makes people people, and that means people being permitted to clash, disagree, and compete.

It's not defeatist in any way. His weird fantasy world where work and investment aren't rewarded sounds like a miserable hell hole.

The scale of what government is capable of compared to government plus the private sector are not remotely comparable.

It is a statement of fact that if private companies were not entitled to the fruits of their research it's literally impossible anywhere near as much research would be done, and literally impossible that output of that research would be further along.