The title is 'internet', implying a network of networks. The title wasn't 'new record in data transmission speed'.
youngalfred
joined 3 weeks ago
The actual source: www.nict.go.jp
Not really an 'internet' world speed record, but really a wired data transmission record if I'm reading correctly.
Choice to do what?
These are their two points:
Private servers are not always a viable alternative option for players as the protections we put in place to secure players’ data, remove illegal content, and combat unsafe community content would not exist and would leave rights holders liable. In addition, many titles are designed from the ground-up to be online-only; in effect, these proposals would curtail developer choice by making these video games prohibitively expensive to create.
I feel like the first is fair enough at the moment, but with accompanying laws it could be resolved. Eg once a developer enacts an end of life plan, their legal culpability is removed. Plus give the right tools for moderation and the community can take care of it.
Second is just a cop out I think. "Many titles are designed from the ground up to be online only" - that's the whole point. It's not retroactive, so you don't need to redesign an existing game. But going forward you would need to plan for the eventual end of life. Developers have chimed in that it can be done.
Have to say, the steamdeck has been great for this.
Pick up exactly where you left off, press the sleep button to pause exactly where you are. I tend to play on story mode now because I don't have time to grind and just want to experience the game.
Sits beside the bed so once the kids have been put to bed and if there's down time it's pick up and go.
I love how they went into so much detail about why the old numbers would be accurate, then proceed to say they can 'safely' say that windows has lost 400 million users over a sentence on a blog stating windows has 'over a billion users'.
No source for the blog post. Here it is: windows blog
Note that the number has been updated, and at the bottom they state that that figure has been updated.
The original text said 'over a billion'. 1.4 billion is over a billion.
Of course I read it, and investigated the source. The issue is with the title the article chose.