Why the simutrans folks decided on a weird hardcoded frame rate (40fps) that looks janky as hell on every single display ever I will never understand. Unplayable. instant motion sickness.
It sounds to me like a product of the ‘90s. CRTs were still common, and they support essentially arbitrary fixed refresh rates. It wouldn’t have been a big deal at the time. It’s like how the original Doom runs at a native 35fps when you don’t use interpolation.
I haven’t played simultrans, but I wonder if it feels less janky on a 120 Hz or 240 Hz monitor, since both of those values are evenly divisible by 40. Compared to playing on a 60 Hz display or other non-multiple of 40 refresh rate monitors.
Ever heard of little games called Diablo 1 and 2? People spent billions of hours playing those on displays with framerates faster than 25 for 2 decades.
Their definition of "app store" is a mile wide: "(e) (1) “Covered application store” means a publicly available internet website, software application, online service, or platform that distributes and facilitates the download of applications from third-party developers to users of a computer, a mobile device, or any other general purpose computing that can access a covered application store or can download an application."
Grats, github is an appstore. apt-get is an app store. You posting software on your own website is an app store.
GitHub isn’t an app stores associated with an operating system though. Your personal website is most likely not in scope. You have to put all the pieces together.
Apt… yes is an App Store run by an operating system organization (Debian org). That feels pretty unsurprising. Debian’s parent organization (headquartered in the US) probably needs to comply with this.
> Apt… yes is an App Store run by an operating system organization (Debian org). That feels pretty unsurprising. Debian’s parent organization (headquartered in the US) probably needs to comply with this.
And that right there is exactly the fucking problem. A zero profit collective “store” that publishes zero profit hobbyist “apps” is now going to have to invest in some kind of harebrained compliance scheme that will only grow from here.
In a couple of years is my “app” in Debian’s store going to require some goddamn TPS report and certification to tell California that everything is above board? It’s incredibly likely! By itself this law does nothing but lay the groundwork for regulation of “apps”, which by itself might be acceptable, but including FOSS distribution channels and hobby apps in the scope of this law is nothing short of evil. It’s laying the groundwork for a frontal assault on FOSS, and if you don’t see that then I don’t know what to tell you.
My guess is that Linux wasn’t extensively considered in the writing of this law, but when the next stage comes along and people start complaining, legislators will shrug and say “oh well, they need to comply”—and lobbyists for the big 3 proprietary software firms will back that position up. This is setting up a killshot for consumer Linux.
No, fighting a war requires only engaging in international armed conflict.
Declaring a war requires Congress, and fighting a war other than in response to an invasion may be illegal under US law if Congress has not exercised its power to declare war, but that doesn't prevent wars from happening it just makes it illegal (though the only actual remedy is impeachment) for the President to wage war without authorization. And, in any case, that’s largely moot because Congress has exercised that power in an open ended (in terms of when and against whom) but limited (in authorized duration of any particular action without subsequent authorization) manner via the War Powers Act, giving every President since Nixon a blank check to start wars with full legal authority and then allow Congress an opportunity to vote to pull support from forces already in combat and hope the enemy already engaged is willing to treat the war as over as the only after-the-fact constraint.
And also that many of the channels people were insisting they don't want were actually paying for coverage, not charging for it. (Home shopping, religion, etc)
No, that is absolutely 100% not micropayments, as the consumer is not paying per view/article/video whatever. They're paying a fixed fee and are not metered.
Good to know. Now I think I know why micropayments for news media never took off: because people who want to read news media probably don't want to waste mental cycles on keeping track of a micropayments account. They want a set-and-forget solution with a predictable cost. If micropayments can't fit those expectations, then the market probably wants something other than the thing we're calling micropayments.
That was actually a bad year, as that "free" $21 million represented a loss of about $30 million. $1.17 billion on Jan 1st 2016 is equivalent to $1.22 billion a year later due to inflation. So they would have had to generate $50 million just to break even in actual buying power terms.
No, they're saying that inflation that year was 4.3% ($1.22B / $1.17B¹) If you're only making 1.8% in investing it, you're not beating inflation, and your money, though nominally growing (number is going up), is decreasing in its real value (amount of stuff the money gets is going down).
(¹I think this is too high; BLS thinks inflation over 2016 was 2.5%. But their core point still stands: interest earned was below inflation.)
Virtually all speedos read fast. The federal standards have a fairly high margin for being allowed to read high, and a zero margin for reading low. Thus speedos are more or less universally calibrated to read at least 5% high.
reply