×ⵜ×PONTIF×ⵜ×

There’s loads of Worms games now though they’re all the same sort of thing. I think they just announced an “anniversary edition” of Armageddon, which looks basically the same as the Steam version but ported to modern consoles. Still a banger 25 years on!

The one thing about patent law I know is that you can’t patent something that already exists in the wild (“prior art”), so surely that can’t be the case, and if it is then it’s open-and-shut, right?

I am pretty sure I picked up the Android version for free a few years ago and it had The Offspring but I installed it just now and it’s gone. It’s also now talking about ads and data collection so I assume the original build has been unavailable for a while.

The WiiU could run the entire Wii OS, so that’s pretty good for backwards compatibility

I guess that’s what instances are trying to avoid by preemptively blocking Threads. If everyone else blocks it then Lemmy carries on existing as it is. And I can’t imagine big corpo wouldn’t want to create their own name.

Either they federate and all their users are exposed to the rest of the fediverse, or they don’t and they may as well be a separate thing

I was keeping in mind that they put that much money in, surely all that money has made something playable that would make some money, whereas throwing it all away makes nothing at all, right?

“Certain aspects of Concord were exceptional,” Hulst continued, “but others did not land with enough players, and as a result we took the game offline. We have spent considerable time these past few months exploring all our options [and] after much thought, we have determined the best path forward is to permanently sunset the game and close the studio.”

But why? Did they actually think it was going to cost more money to keep the servers running than it would bring in? What’s the opposite of the sunk cost fallacy?

This is the most !nottheonion@lemmy.world headline I’ve ever read

Kafka was from Prague, probably no coincidence!

My office chair is a gaming chair (seems fine), my gaming chair is the sofa and a big pile of cushions (and the bog, of course)

I’m guessing the ISPs aren’t forced to share their cables with other ISPs then?

Over here we have “fibre to the kerb” for people whose houses aren’t fully supported yet, meaning it’s fast fibre-optic cable all the way to somewhere near your house, then it uses your existing copper wires for the last bit. It’s not at fast as proper fibre-optic but still a lot better than old copper wires.

So why don’t other ISPs offer comparable speeds in the same location?

That’s mental

What exactly does that mean? I thought you had anti-monopoly laws?

Wait, so does a single company own all the cabling or something!? We have a despised-for-their-incompetence company called Openreach in Britain but the cables they manage cover almost the entire county and any ISP can use them.

I keep seeing comcast mentioned, why do you guys across the pond pay for a broadband service with a maximum download amount like it’s a 3G phone?

Hopefully not a public one. It would be perfect if it was a direct message (or even better, built in to your client) but all those request comments and responses from the bot were basically spam to everyone else!

I think their point is that you said “but I am overall against these practices, since they are just illegal”, as in you’re against something because it’s illegal not because it’s immoral