Not everyone has $$$ to spend on a subscription service and they would locked out of content. Ads are necessary to promote accessibility of content in my opinion.
They could just pirate content, as many have always done. But I see your point, ads can be an acceptable form of payment. I have seen this in a mobile game for example, where you can buy the in-game currency with real money, and you can also get some if you watch ads, fill surveys etc. I'm sure it's abused to hell and back, with telemetry and so on, but I could get on top that right after I ban all other ads.
Because some people love different drinks? Water is good too but people enjoy drinking different things. I actually don't understand how so many people in this thread are completely blind to this and are like "Why don't you just enjoy the world like I do?"
Yes, but you are not the only person working for that company. I for one fight for the right of every employee of the company I work for to be treated fairly and greatly. Just because YOU have a good relationship with your company (or more so with your manager) doesn't mean everyone is on equal foot. I feel extremely uncomfortable when my coworkers are crying for help and all I show is indifference.
This is a point I think needs to be shouted from the rooftops. We should always have sympathy for our fellow workers and stand up for each other. Even if you are doing a technically demanding job, you should still look out for those doing janitorial work and other "low skill" tasks you couldn't bear to come into the office without.
Historically, the most successful unions in the southern US were those run by communists, because they didn't exclude people on the basis of their race. They correctly recognized that the liberation of the workers could only happen if everyone was united. It was often a hard sell to the white workers, being paid the same as a black man during Jim Crow, but the results ultimately spoke for themselves.
Unions which were whites-only were far less effective. When the white workers would go on strike, temp agencies would just round up a bunch of black men to break the strike. Turns out being able to see people who look like yourself on a picket line makes you much less likely to cross.
Although I think it's extremely important to move forward in making artists do less work, I do not expect that a full zbrush model without any retolopogy to go into the engine and expect it to just work, specially because most of the time you also need to take care of animation and texture/uv. Also I also worry about download size. So there are still many reasons why you'd want to optimize the hell out of a mesh in a game engine even if it has the capability to support millions of polygons.
In the video they say that they animated the high poly golem mesh using their new animation tools and they are certainly marketing it as 'zbrush directly to engine'. I'm curious how they went about texturing that massive mesh though and how well it works with humans where muscle deformation is important (I'd imagine the answer is "it doesn't").
Yes but their demo is a 100GB download alone, it seems. That's just a demo. The capabilities of new hardware and engines to render worlds is massively outstripping the capabilities of distribution networks to get that data into people's homes. That's where the next challenge is. Xbox Live is already a long way from being able to deliver games quickly and it will only get worse.
You are slicing her up not the article. It is simply stating that no woman has ever achieved a ranking as high as she did and it also happens to be a woman of color. I don't think it's that hard to understand, is it? Also, this is indeed significant because it puts hope to so many woman and woman of color that they can achieve it too and not be afraid of be who they are in America.
I'm not, maybe I haven't explained clearly, because you've just repeated the 'a ranking as high' bit that I don't understand rather than answering it. Does it refer to her having been a senator, or to now being VP?
From what you're saying, I think it's that she's first female VP and also happens to be black and also happens to have a South Asian background?
I don't have an agenda here, I just didn't understand that paragraph, and, if I'm correct in my understanding above, think it was written in just about the most confusing way possible.
Coming from the outside it might be easier to work forwards to the statement instead of backwards from it:
All vice presidents (2nd highest executive position) and presidents (highest executive position) up until this point have been white males with the exception of former president Barack Obama who was a black male and former vice president Charles Curtis who was native american male. Kamala Harris is a black/asian female who looks to be the next vice president.
> will become the highest-ranking woman ever to serve in government,
that confuses me. Is she to be the first female VP? Or does 'highest ranking woman' refer to her present position in the senate?
I think I understand now that it's the former. It just seems strange to me to lead with the more specific 'firsts'. I would have written something more like:
> Kamala Harris also makes history as the first female Vice President, and, notably at a time when the US faces a reckoning in racial justice, a black woman, and the first of South Asian descent.
(Borrowing phrasing and emphasis from the original nevertheless, since I understand they may be more relevant in the US than they perhaps are to me.)
I just honestly didn't realise from that paragraph originally that she was the first woman entirely. It was sort of there, but so hidden that I thought I was wrong.
It might help to know that the perceived ranking is President >> VP > US Senator. Though a “more honest” ranking would be President > US Senator > VP (since they only ever vote in ties in the senate or sit around until the sitting President can’t serve.)
But if you read the constitution of the US, it’s more like SCOTUS > House Speaker > President > Senate leader > US Senator >> US House Rep. And then there’s the state governments. The ranking of the House Speaker is because that person actually has the power of the pen and can in large part dictate what happens. The genius move is all the rules and political factors make being the House Speaker essentially destroy a politicians political clout, standing - everything. The oddball is that you don’t have to be an elected official to be voted in as House Speaker - you just have to get a majority support in the House and not be otherwise disqualified (I.e. no former 2-term Presidents).
There are kind of these two exceptions (below in links), in addition to the ones noted above. Diversity at the highest level of government isn't exactly a strong suit for the US.
It could also say 'will become the most South Asian woman ever to...', doesn't mean that she has only now become South Asian.
'highest-ranking woman ever to serve in government' just makes it sound like her 'high-ranking' is independent of her serving in government to me. Especially given that it's a bigger more general milestone than the preceding sentences.
Simple question to whoever is honestly defending Apple: What if Windows prevented people from installing anything on their computer except from the Microsoft Store. Then Microsoft forced every app to use their payment system and then charged an excessive 30% fee for each transaction. Would you think that's an abusive and illegal practice?
I might be mistaken, but wasn't this the policy Apple had since the beginning of AppStore? Every developer and user knew from the beginning what they are getting into.
With Windows it is different, no? It would be a drastic change to a product, which operated differently at the beginning.
Yes, the fee has been there since the beginning, if you use their payment system.
I think the new and problematic policy is that they now
- forbid you to use other payment systems than their own
- forbid you to just add the 30% to your price on iOS compared to other platforms
- forbid you to mention to the user that they can pay on the company's website or through other channels
Also their own product's don't have to pay the fee. So Apple Music can charge 30% less than Spotify or Spotify can distribute significantly less of the revenue to the artists.
Not on ARM. There you only have a choice between Microsoft store apps or emulated x86 applications. You're not going to use Firefox on Windows on ARM unless you download the x86 version which will perform very poorly.
reply