Wait are we arguing that the owner of something isn’t entitled more than someone who bought it?

FTFY. The problem is not with Nintendo being against emulators because of piracy, they’re against emulators even if you own the game and the hardware but want to preserve the hardware (just like they do in the museum).

And if the counter-argument is that you don’t own the game when you buy it, then by that same logic you don’t steal it when you pirate it.

With it, you can use your Xbox controller to move around the screen and type.

Does that mean you couldn’t before? Seriously people were playing around on a handheld that couldn’t even type?

Button accelerators are also available; these include the X button for backspace and the Y button for the spacebar.

WTF!? Isn’t that standard also?

For better movement patterns, the keyboard keys are aligned vertically."

Does this even make a difference?

In any case, the title is bullshit, it should be that will make windows handhelds close to typing on consoles which sucks. Typing on the Deck is a completely different experience, one that can’t be replicated in any of these handhelds because they lack the hardware to do so.

Also I forgot to reply to this on the other answer, but:

Err… You often don’t have the files drm free on Steam. Nor in an installable format (without steam).

Often you do, and an installer is nothing more than a fancy zipped folder. Also people usually like to compare Steam with GoG and claim that on GoG you get DRM free games and not on Steam, that is not true, both have either, although GoG has percentually more it’s still not 100% DRM free (nor is Steam 100% DRMd), it’s always up to the game developers.

This is what you said:

While that may be partly true, (also likely) depending on the county you’re located, they’re not able to revoke the license though.

The same is true for Steam, laws are laws

So in this specific case you having the files makes a world of difference.

You also have the files if you downloaded them on Steam. What’s important is whether those files can be used on their own or if they’re protected by some form of DRM. If the files can be used on their own it doesn’t matter if you got them from Steam, GoG or a physical disc. If on the other hand the files are DRM protected you having them is useless, whoever controls the DRM controls your files, again regardless of where you got the files from.

No, watching a gameplay won’t give you the same experience. Keep avoiding spoilers, it is really best experienced blind, although knowing there is something to experience might weaken it.

But then the same is also true for Steam

While I get where you’re coming from, Fallout 76 was a bad example, you don’t need a subscription to play (unless your preferred system of choice asks you for it regardless of the game you play) and it is intended to be a multiplayer first game, you might not like it, but it is not an example of what you’re complaining anymore than Elder Scrolls Online or World of Warcraft (which actually has a subscription model).

And the answer is simple, don’t buy those games, there are thousands of excellent single player games, if always online games start to fail companies will stop doing it, vote with your wallet. I recommend taking a look at indie games, there are several excellent games and almost assuredly they don’t have DRM, or at least not always online ones.

On the one hand I get where you’re coming from, those sections are very thematically different from the rest of the game, but realistically it’s just a couple of minutes of very easy stealth.

No Linux client? I guess I understand, not enough DRM free Linux games, but still… Not for me.

Dozzle sounds awesome, definitely adding it to my stack

I haven’t heard anyone else mention it, Vultr is a good one as well.

Even considering your edits, it’s still a stupid argument. By that same logic nothing should be preserved. Watching LotR now is not the same as watching it when it first came out, which should have never been made according to you because by that time the book should have already been destroyed since you wouldn’t want to preserve it for 50 years, but Tolkien shouldn’t have even written it, since they were based on ideas and drafts he did during the first world war exploring how war changes men and power corrupts, which obviously is only valid in that context and nowhere else so it should be destroyed since preserving it would be invasive and destructive, no?.

Preserving something can never be destructive, it’s the opposite of it. If the Mona Lisa was destroyed you wouldn’t even know it existed, so how can having preserved it be destructive when the alternative is oblivion?

And I agree that the Mona Lisa is no big deal, you know who else agrees? People from that time. It’s widely known that the Mona Lisa was one of Da Vinci’s less famous works, and until Napoleon made a big deal out of it it was just a random painting in a random museum. So I get part of your point, that people who make a big deal out of the Mona Lisa are only there to see the famous painting, but that doesn’t mean that there’s no reason to preserve it, or that there are no people who go there to see the actual Mona Lisa.

Steam vs GoG is a turf war, Epic vs anything will make people side with anything. The problem is that Epic has a shitty store with shitty features, and the only way it can compete with the others out there is to pay piles of money to game devs so they make their game exclusive to their store for some time. So usually people just ignore the game until it comes up in another store, and most of us have completely forgotten about it by then so when we find out just add it to the wishlist and wait for a 90% discount in a while. The game has been out for years at that point so a massive discount is expected soon and you already waited years to play, you can wait a bit more and save money, plus that teaches companies that signing exclusivity contracts is a shit deal.

One important thing, ensure the drive is CMR, the reason is that you likely want a RAID, and non-CMR disks take so long to read the entire disk that the chances of a second failure while recovering from a disk failure is significant.

That being said, how are you keeping track of the disks state? I built my RAID recently, and your post made me realize that I have nothing to notify me if one of the disks shows early signs of problems.

Nope, never bought any of the NFTs that were sold to idiot speculators because I understand the technology and see no value in owning a token representing a digital image. I feel that the rage of downvoting comes from people who got scammed because they didn’t understood the technology and now see it mentioned and think it’s all a scam, similar to how old people used to think emails were a scam because they sent money to a prince in Nigeria.

Cool, I’ve been out of the loop on crypto for years, just checked and you are correct, now the full Ethereum network, capable of beating visa in TpS runs at 0.0026 TWh/yr, i.e. 1/100x of the energy consumption of PayPal, therefore proving my point above.

Did you read the link you sent? It clearly states that only the amount of miners matter like I said before, the amount of transactions has nothing to do with it, you’re mixing the two.

The more people mine, the more decentralized it is

Wrong, decentralization is hard to measure, one person with a mining farm is centralized, while hundreds of people with their personal computer are decentralized but both produce the same amount of hash power. So you can have one person investing more and more in mining rigs increasing the total amount of mining power in the pool but decreasing it’s decentralization.

the more energy is necessary because difficulty is increased.

Yes, this is correct, if you have more computers mining you will have a higher energy spending.

The more transactions happen, the more blocks are required,

Wrong, there’s one blonc every 10 minutes, regardless of the amount of transactions that happen. Did you even read the link you sent?

the more energy needs to be spent to confirm all the transactions.

Wrong, the energy needed to confirm 1 or 1000 transactions is the same, and it’s related to the hashing difficulty established by the total amount of hash power, again, did you even read the link you sent?

The more it’s used, the higher the value, the more people mine.

Wrong, the value of an asset does not necessarily correlate with it’s use, for example gold is more valuable than dollar, even though dollar is a lot more used.

There’s a limit to the number of transactions per block as well, so no, your can’t just say “1 or 1000 it’s the same”.

Yes there is, but until that limit is hit the amount of transactions doesn’t matter. Also that limit is artificial and can be easily raised if needed, as it was done on Bitcoin Cash which can do hundreds of transactions per second more than Bitcoin, but because it has less miners uses less energy, thus proving you are wrong and the two are not correlated.

Visa is already able to handle 24000 transactions per second as is, no need for more infrastructure.

And ETH2 is theoretically capable of 100k, and that’s just one coin which BTW is PoS so nothing of what we talked about miners applies to it. No miners means less power consumption by the network as a whole.

Crypto uses 1% of the world’s energy production for a couple trillions in assets, the financial system uses 2.5% for quadrillions in assets, multiple thousands more than crypto, no, crypto can’t scale to that without a huge environmental impact.

Do you have a source for that? But also you’re measuring environmental impact as just energy consumption, and that’s very wrong, by that same standard I could say crypto is green because it produces no plastic, whereas Visa has huge factories to produce plastic for their cards, their card machines, etc. If you only focus on one environmental impact it’s easy to make anyone to be the bad guy, and for some reason people only see the Bitcoin energy usage and completely ignore that the energy consumption there is the whole story, whereas for other things there’s hundreds of factors pilling on top to generate the environmental impact.

Yes you are trying to greenwash crypto, just stop.

Again, I’m not, I recognize that PoW is an energy hungry method of confirmation, however it’s not the environmental catastrophe that the original comment said and if you take into consideration ALL of the environmental impact of alternatives (not just energy consumption) you will see that it’s not as bad as people make it out to be. Which doesn’t mean it’s good, but it’s far from an environmental catastrophe.

Also when you take into consideration that we were originally talking NFTs, and that’s mostly an Ethereum thing, and Ethereum is migrating to PoS, it’s even less of an environmental catastrophe.

First of all losing value and being a scam are not correlated, the dollar is losing its value compared to the Euro for the past year but it’s not a scam.

Secondly that would be an association fallacy, “X is a scam, X is an NFT, therefore all NFT are scam”.

Crypto energy usage goes up the more it’s being used and the more decentralized it becomes.

That’s wrong, crypto energy consumption has to do with how hard is the PoW difficulty, it does not correlate at all with usage or centralization, it’s only related with security, i.e the more energy it consumes the more energy someone would need to use to attack the technology.

But the energy needed to mine 1 transaction or 1000 is the same. There are problems at scale, but power consumption is not one of them.

Centralized services like Visa can increase the network load while barely increasing the energy requirements.

Not really, they need more servers to process more transactions, but cryptocurrency can scale up much more easily because the whole infrastructure from consumer to miner is decentralized.

Crypto bros always forget that to replace the banking system, crypto would need to replace the infrastructure as well, but because of decentralization it would be less energy efficient for the same result.

That’s what most people fail to see, the infrastructure for a scale at the size of visa is already in place for crypto. So there wouldn’t be an increase in power consumption by mass adoption, only by miner adoption, and that’s a difficult thought to grasp, it’s like if everyone could borrow their computer to visa or Mastercard to process their transactions, the amount of people wanting to offer their computer to visa/master would define how much resources they use, but an increase in visa users doesn’t mean an increase in visa borrowed servers and vice-versa.

You can just stop, there’s no way to greenwash crypto and decentralization. The amount of transactions happening on all crypto networks at the moment could be handled by one server if it was centralized. There’s benefits to it, stop trying to sell it as being green, it’s not and never will be.

I’m not trying to green wash, but crypto is not the environmental disaster the person claimed, especially not when you take into consideration PoS and newer coins with different validation methods.

No, there isn’t, but there are advantages to it as well, just like how a database has advantages over a paper folder.

An NFT can’t be transferred by anyone other than the owner, and ownership can be verified independently.

Here’s an example of a use that would be very cool and would take advantage of it (even though I know it’s unlikely to happen). Ownership of games, some games are sold on different platforms, to verify the ownership of the game (or DLC, or cosmetics) games have to verify with first party services (like PSN or Steam), which means that for the most part you need to buy games on each platform individually, but if platforms used an NFT for it games would be buy once play anywhere, and they would allow you to sell or even borrow games, and no company could prevent you from doing so. Which is obviously the reason this will never happen, but it’s a nice idea.

That being said there are downsides to it as well, such as a person being the full owner of stuff means that a person can lose the key and therefore lose access to the house, or that scammer can steal everything, whereas making you sign your house to someone else is a lot more beurocratic, which serves to protect you from you.

Just to be clear, I’m not a “we should use NFT for everything” type of person, in fact I don’t think there are many use cases nowadays that are worth using it, but the technology is interesting regardless, and solves the problem of how to prove ownership without a centralized trusted organization.