Ownership in terms distribution of digital software is a bit funky I guess, but from a consumers point of view, there’s really nothing GOG/game companies can do once you got the installer. You’re effectively owning the bits on your hard drive and there’s nothing they can do to control what you do with those bits. I guess from a lawyers perspective it may be different, but in practice there isn’t much.

I’m not sure what you’re getting at with the licenses though? A game licensed under MIT would be free to share, attribution shouldn’t be much of problem.

The vast majority of the bestsellers on steam either have normal DRM or DRM via being an online service. At least the bestsellers in 2023.

Put the installer on a USB stick and sell it. I assume you’ve never gone back to the electronics store where you bought your dishwasher and expected to sell your used dishwasher there.

Sounds like a nothingburger, sovereign wealth funds investment in a diverse set of industries. And especially industries their own economy isn’t big in.

I don’t see PIF here though 🤔

Which in turn reposted it from a Roman source

Once operational, the energy generated is cheap and will still be in demand

And then the other half of the Internet cries about how all they do are lazy remasters.

No. Different genre at this point

I can’t remember ever having used meta critic to guide a purchase. There is so much content both from forums and YouTube/Twitch that gives you much more accurate impressions of games. Meta critic seems rather pointless nowadays.

I don’t think you become the best tech CEO in the world by having a healthy approach to work. He is just wired differently, some people are just all about work.

Children probably

It’s just a research paper, not a product. It’s about discovering and learning new possible methods and applications.

You could always ask someone to vouch for you. It could also be that you have open communities and closed communities. So you would build up trust in an open community before being trusted by someone to be allowed to interact with the closed communities. Open communities could be communities less interesting/harder for the bots to spam and closed communities could be the high risk ones, such as news and politics.

Would this greatly reduce the user friendliness of the site? Yes. But it would be an option if bots turn into a serious problem.

I haven’t really thought through the details and I’m not sure how well it would work for a decentralised network though. Would each instance run their own trust tree, or would trusted instances share a single trust database 🤷‍♂️

We are just debris from a big explosion.

A chain/tree of trust. If a particular parent node has trusted a lot of users that proves to be malicious bots, you break the chain of trust by removing the parent node. Orphaned real users would then need to find a new account that is willing to trust them, while the bots are left out hanging.

Not sure how well it would work on federated platforms though.

Ubisoft are

They are probably the most complex machines ever created by humanity though, and requires expertise across the whole world to build. Even if they had blueprints, it would take years just to get the manufacturing right.

Don’t get high on your own supply, as the saying goes.

Just a heads up that I think you replied to the wrong comment in the chain