There are more infinite sequences than finite ones.
So not all infinite sequences can be uniquely specified by a finite description.
Like √2 is a finite description, so is the definition of π, but since there is no way to map the abstract set of "finite description" surjectively to the set of infinite sequences you find that any one approach will leave holes.
But doesn't this assume what you intend to show? Of course you can't specify an infinite and non-repeating sequence, but how do you know that is a number?
Slightly longer answer decimal numbers between 0 and 1 can be written as the sum of a_0*10^0 + a_1*10^1 + a_2*10^2 + ... + a_i*10^i + ... where a_i is one of 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9. for series in this shape you can prove that the sum of two series is the same iff and only if the sequence of digits are all the same (up to the slight complication of 0.09999999 = 0.1 and similar)
An advantage of WASI is that it mostly works on non-WASI runtimes too, as it can be compiled to one or more normal modules (with the multi memory feature).
So a possible reason is that maybe they are not interested in offering general interfaces but just a single python specific one.
In this case they could have likely used wasi for that too but I can see how it could have been seen as an overhead
Yeah but if a pirate would have not paid the full price why care? It is by definition not a lost sale, the most likely outcome is just an increase by one the player count
Because the price isn't binary? Also, the total spend isn't fixed either, it depends on how easy it's to pirate. So it's by definition still lost revenue, even if later/at reduced price
Consider reality instead, you can make any fantasy case you want:
C. You didn't pirate, but played because your friends were deeply into it, so you skipped buying lunch to save money and pay for the game (pirating was hard for this specific DRM). You bought it at a discount on sale (remember, the price isn't fixed?). That feeling of overcoming hardship and friendship fused into a very positive experience, making it 10 times more likely for you to buy the next version than in A. or B. The overall likelihood still was tiny because now you have a family and don't have time to play, so that and
D. Considering the amount of uncertainty (your game company will go out of business in 25 years) the value of your "more likely" is $0
Not paying full price is not a "lost sale". People unwilling to pay full price wait for a discount or price reduction. Look at how popular the seasonal Steam sales are. Pirating the game very likely means they never purchase it at any price, which _is_ a lost sale.
I never paid for games as a kid (starting with 8 years and first PC). We didn’t have the money until much later. Other friends and uncles had games, we copied it all. Eight years later (with 16) I bought two game compilations for birthday and Christmas. Around 40 games, no more than 2 or 3 years old. I had fun for years.
And then much later being a university student, I had money of my own and have bought games I liked. Never pirated to save money. And you know, GOG came along, and I was thrilled having the old games from my childhood again as digital legal copy. With manuals and addons. I bought 20+ old DOS games I already knew. Better late than never.
Isn't that exactly what companies use as justification for DMCA and DRM protection?
Without those, you'd have sites full of pirated game downloads easily found through search engines. DMCA takedowns force those sites into shady corners of the internet, making them harder to find and riskier for the average user. And (effective) DRM makes users have to wait for a crack which may take weeks or months.
The result is that it's easier for the average person to just log into Steam/Epic/PSN/eShop and spend $60 to play immediately.
The point is that legal threats keep any centralized platforms that might do vetting small. That probably accounts for the vast majority of the effect. Beyond that the old fashioned "DRM" of a CD key is generally going to be more than sufficient to prevent "acts of convenience".
I'm sure there are exceptions but the usual claims take the observation about a minor speed bump and add a bunch of made up BS to justify consumer hostile practices.
Notice that there's nothing stopping a centralized darknet platform that vettes torrents from popping up. But as far as I know no one feels like bothering. That should give you some idea just how low the bar is here.
They might still spend $600 on 10 more games though. Or spend it on a subset of the games they pirated because they want to support the developer. Who knows.
The main reason that Russia had a fame for pirating a lot of software was that a lot of publishers either skipped it as a market or did shitty localisations and pirates offered a far better service.
reply