Or because the servers went offline or the company didn't bother to keep the source code. A few years ago, there was a really bad remaster of one of the GTA games where it turned out they used the mobile version of the game as the source code because Rockstar hadn't bothered to keep a copy of the game. There was another time where it turned out that the copy used for a remaster of a game was a cracked version of the game, and people could tell because they hadn't even bothered to remove the cracker's logo. It's estimated that over 50% of games are now gone forever because companies just don't bother to preserve copies of the source code.
EldritchFeminity
joined 2 years ago
There will always be traffic, but public transportation allows for a higher throughput for the same speed and total surface area of the roads.
Let's be generous and assume that every car has 2 people in it (the truth is that the vast majority of cars, especially in the US, only have 1 person in them). Now imagine 15 cars vs. 30 bicycles. If we figure that you can comfortably fit 3 bikes in the same space as 1 car, you're looking at 150% throughput for the bikes compared to the cars at the same speed. Give them their own dedicated, separate infrastructure, and they can probably go faster than traffic while also removing the danger of bikes and cars sharing the road. If you figure buses can fit 20 people in the space of 2 car lengths, you're looking at 10x the throughput.
And that's not even getting into transportation that doesn't use the roads. The Boston T is a perfect example of this. Despite its notoriety for constant failures due to poor maintenance, and only being half the size it was 100 years ago, the T is considered to be the 3rd best public transportation network in the US. Why? Because the average commute time is about half the national average at roughly half an hour, and a full 50% of Boston's commuters use the T every day. That's half as many cars in traffic every day than if the T didn't exist. Could you imagine if Boston, notorious for its bad roads and heavy traffic, suddenly had twice as many cars driving on its streets?
That's the thing, the number of new cars using that road ends up being at least one additional lane's worth. So traffic moves at the same speed as it was before the extra lane, just now with one more lane's worth of cars on that road.
If anything, you might see marginally better traffic on other roads because of the cars that started using the new lane, but you'd be talking about a handful of cars per road. Probably not enough for any discernible change in travel time or congestion, and each new lane you add later will have diminishing returns because it will be a smaller fraction of the total number of lanes coming from any specific direction.
I heard a city planner talk about why adding a new lane doesn't help, and the term they use is "induced demand."
Basically, people are going to take the route that they consider the most convenient, and that usually comes down to time and effort. Traffic hurts both by taking more time and being more stressful to deal with. When you add a new lane to a road, people think that the traffic will be easier there, so they take that route instead of their normal one. So you're just adding more cars to the traffic that match or exceed the throughput of your new lane, basically putting you back at square one but a few billion dollars more poor.
You've essentially added a single lane one-way road to help ease traffic across the entire city.
How did they ignore it when it's both on the store page and the first thing you see ingame since day one? They didn't add that in later. It's always been there. It wasn't optional for a period of time on launch day, before the servers were overloaded. It was then temporarily made optional, and they said as much (though obviously not clearly enough for people to realize that).
They expected an active userbase of about 10k. They didn't know how popular this game was going to be.
More likely, they didn't know that PSN accounts are only available in select regions. They followed the stipulations on all fronts except selling the game in places that can't make accounts, and everything else is the result of the PSN account requirement being made optional while Sony rolled out more infrastructure to handle the player load.
It was listed on the store page from day one. It was put in front of your face the first time you launched the game. It was only made optional temporarily due to the overloaded servers on launch day. This was said, though not clearly enough for people to realize before now that the PSN account being optional was only temporary, it seems.
My money's on Arrowhead not knowing that PSN accounts are only available in specific regions and countries. Otherwise, none of it makes sense. This was always going to happen if they knew and did it anyway, and why would they torpedo their dev studio with the refunds like that.
They were using the bike locks to claim that the protesters had ties to terrorist organizations, because "it's not the kind of thing a normal student has."
Despite the fact that the exact model of bike lock was part of a deal on bike locks advertised by the CU campus security on Facebook not 6 weeks ago.
How else am I gonna light the fireplace without getting up from the couch?
How many fingers am I holding up? If your answer is 6 or more, I have bad news for you and your data set.
You should check out some videos of CIWS (Close In Weapon Systems) in action. They're systems designed to shoot down projectiles like missiles and mortar rounds (as well as targeting small vehicles and planes). The sheer number of rounds they spray to take out a target that is moving on a single ballistic trajectory is crazy.
The closest thing I know of to what you're talking about would be hard-kill APS (Active Protection Systems). These are systems designed to protect vehicles like tanks from incoming rounds and missiles. Using radar and optical sensors, they can detect a round and predict whether or not it's going to hit the vehicle and respond in nanoseconds, firing an explosive back at a target traveling 1-2km per second. However, this isn't like shooting a bullet out of the air with another bullet. It's more like chucking a grenade at a missile to either deflect it or destroy enough of it that the pieces (still going 1-2km/s) don't damage the vehicle.
But both of these systems are designed mainly for destroying targets on a ballistic trajectory. When you throw drones into the mix, now you have a target that can react to your reaction. With slower moving drones like the helicopter ones, that's easy enough. But what about a drone that's moving at mach 2 and capable of sustaining 20g's, like a missile. Now you're talking about basically firing missiles at missiles, which has proven to be very difficult before a missile has spent its fuel and is coasting towards its target on its final ballistic trajectory.
You dangerous, mute, Karen.
Chell has been blocked
I'd agree with you if the devs were being treated better, games should cost more and be shorter. But the price hikes aren't that. They're pure greed.
That extra money isn't going to pay the developers. EA just shut down multiple studios, including the studio responsible for the critically acclaimed AA game High-Fi Rush, and are already talking about shutting down more. EA has closed more studios than they've released games this year, and the past 3 years have seen record high layoffs - even worse than during the 2008 financial crash. All this while companies brag about record-breaking profits.
And with the rise of digital media, production costs saw a significant decrease. There was a short period of time where physical copies were $60 and digital were $40. Now digital are averaging $70 and execs are already talking about increasing the price to $80-100.