conciselyverbose

My understanding was that their right are pretty broad and that they could basically use official designs, fully custom designs, or anything in between.

My question is whether they adopt any design elements from ARM (whether modified or not) or if it's completely an implementation of the instruction set from scratch.

Ignoring that Apple's chips as laptop flagships have pretty much singlehandedly changed the perception on their viability for actual computers, how much of ARM's work are they actually using?

They design their own chips that are meaningfully ahead of ARM's. I understand that their contract allows them pretty broad access to IP, but are we sure they'd be that much worse off (especially compared to ARM) if this deal wasn't signed and Apple put the investment into a different instruction set?

Hell, they built most of the smartphone and tablet market. Are we sure ARM would even be relevant without Apple's weight?

Age is completely irrelevant. The purpose of a remaster is and always has been to take advantage of newer hardware. The difference in hardware, in and of itself, justifies a remaster. There is a huge difference mechanically in the gameplay between Zero Dawn and Forbidden West. I haven't played the PS5 version of the Last of Us, but I'm assuming it's the same.

The games were held back significantly by the hardware, and because they're done with modern tooling, they can be done a lot more easily than older games, allowing them to pass the savings on by giving you a cheap upgrade if you own it. They're nothing projects, and aren't holding back other projects.

1 generation that was a dogshit excuse for a CPU when it was released a decade ago.

The PS5 SoC is genuinely a solid piece of tech. The performance is reasonable and the hardware features (primarily the hardware compression/decompression to accelerate data loading) actually matter.

The time between games doesn't matter when the hardware is night and day.

It's why I wasn't automatically blaming the other options. I never looked at the actual data to know if they were there.

But trying to recreate them was absolutely brutal, and has been with every option I tried. I looked at implementing my own down and dirty tool to make it more manageable in bookwyrm, but there was just too much mental overhead to get a grasp of the code base in my limited dev time. Just making a basic database and a couple scripts to display my favorites on a couple web pages seems a lot easier. Plus I can treat series as first class citizens in lists and pages with their own blurbs, which none of the bigger options seems to think is useful.

Bookwyrm imported my goodreads export more or less fine, but (IDK if Amazon gave me them) my lists disappeared in the process, and trying to recreate them was the dealbreaker for me. My absurdly large book lists were casual and not something I needed to keep, but I have a few 50-100 book lists that I do care about and that would have required manually searching each title, and that's where I drew the line.

It's already enough of a hassle to go page by page through the 1000-1500 books I have on goodreads and check boxes. Typing them out is way too much work to migrate.

Eventually I'll probably roll my own because I have other functionality requests none of the options meet, but goodreads lists are already not great, so not even matching them is a big step down.

Which is why their lawyer should be disbarred for wasting the court's time.

There is no possible argument that's either legally or morally justified in any context that the purchase should transfer.

Pay to win is literally the only part any human being with a shred of intelligence could in any way find objectionable.

You're literally paying to advance in a specific game. That's the transaction. It is not possible to believe it could possible apply to anything else.

That's literally the entirety of what their currency is. There isn't anything else.

It never in any way implies that it's transferable or applies to other games. It's very clearly a purchase of advancement in that specific game.

As much as I think this is exploitive and that pay to win horseshit shouldn't be allowed, I don't see how there's any kind of merit to this case.

Pay to win is allowed and there's nothing deceptive happening.

It only happens with airdrop from strangers enabled, which you cannot leave on permanently, and your devices have to effectively be touching.

There is genuinely not any meaningful risk involved.

It absolutely cannot be a privacy issue.

It takes the same amount of work as manually sharing your number. It cannot happen without deliberate action.