Through that I found something that confirmed one of my fears. Discord will have online-only DRM for games. I had really hoped that it would be like GoG. You buy a game, you get the install for...
Through that I found something that confirmed one of my fears. Discord will have online-only DRM for games. I had really hoped that it would be like GoG. You buy a game, you get the install for that game. But nope. Definitely wont be buying games from Discord now. And hopefully I can get my essential servers away from it eventually.
The problem isn't games on Nitro. That's kind of like "As long as you pay us, you can play these games for free!" By nature of how that works, DRM would be needed. The issue exists in the market...
The problem isn't games on Nitro. That's kind of like "As long as you pay us, you can play these games for free!" By nature of how that works, DRM would be needed.
The issue exists in the market that everyone has access to. In that market, it's online-only DRM for anything you buy. At least with Steam I can go into offline mode (although I'd prefer not to have it at all).
It astonishes me that this is legally binding, according to them. If this is the case, why doesn't every company include such a clause in their ToS? It costs them nothing, surely.
It astonishes me that this is legally binding, according to them. If this is the case, why doesn't every company include such a clause in their ToS? It costs them nothing, surely.
In Australia, there's a precedent that these clauses are unfair (legal term), and thus invalidate either the clause, or the entire contract. (Unless the parties involved hold equal power over each...
In Australia, there's a precedent that these clauses are unfair (legal term), and thus invalidate either the clause, or the entire contract. (Unless the parties involved hold equal power over each other, say a contractor and small business owner).
It's an empty threat, supposed to make the average consumer cave. It's immoral, unethical, and not at all legally binding.
Unfortunately, precedent swung the other way in the USA, so I'd expect more and more of these online businesses to adopt the arbitration clause.
Just a couple more updates to this story over the last couple of days: Discord made a blog post yesterday addressing the topic and making some changes, including explicitly making it apply only to...
Just a couple more updates to this story over the last couple of days:
Leonard usually releases an edited/condensed version of his livestreams a few days afterwards too, so for most people that may be worth waiting for. I will probably submit it when he releases it...
Leonard usually releases an edited/condensed version of his livestreams a few days afterwards too, so for most people that may be worth waiting for. I will probably submit it when he releases it since the condensed versions are far better for "general interest" consumption of the topics he covers and his livestreams definitely aren't for everyone.
As much as it is infinitely better, it still has bugs like for example there is a menu option or two that takes you to the bloated version... Not to mention all the user links that just goto the...
As much as it is infinitely better, it still has bugs like for example there is a menu option or two that takes you to the bloated version... Not to mention all the user links that just goto the bloated version anyways.
Smaller sites have less things they need to do. Newer sites have less technical debt. Sites created by one person have better defined goals. Sites without VC funding don't need to deliver ads.
Smaller sites have less things they need to do. Newer sites have less technical debt. Sites created by one person have better defined goals. Sites without VC funding don't need to deliver ads.
I would not submit "new.reddit.com" links, even though I find dark themes easier on the eyes. It would be unfair of me to force my preference on others. It's not unreasonable to expect the same...
I would not submit "new.reddit.com" links, even though I find dark themes easier on the eyes. It would be unfair of me to force my preference on others. It's not unreasonable to expect the same level of respect in return.
If users want to change the default experience, then let them decide via user preferences - not forced URL overrides.
old.reddit.com uses less resources, and is cheaper on bandwidth, and therefore should probably be linked to as the default. Expecting people to agree to a third party EULA to customise things is...
old.reddit.com uses less resources, and is cheaper on bandwidth, and therefore should probably be linked to as the default.
Expecting people to agree to a third party EULA to customise things is bizarre; if you're so concerned about it install RES and force the new theme.
I prioritize readability, you prioritize data-use. Why is your position any more correct than mine? Again - letting the user decide is the neutral position. Forcing either the new or old design is...
I prioritize readability, you prioritize data-use. Why is your position any more correct than mine?
Again - letting the user decide is the neutral position. Forcing either the new or old design is unfair to the reader.
Data and electricity use has actual value to the reader, and to the environment. Your position hurts the environment more. The neutral position is going to the minimal usage one by default, and...
Data and electricity use has actual value to the reader, and to the environment.
Your position hurts the environment more.
The neutral position is going to the minimal usage one by default, and not forcing people to use the (arguably less readable) new version.
Forcing people to agree to a third party EULA for more efficiency should never be done.
That's a poor justification and a dubious claim. I could just as easily argue that dark screens (which the redesign supports) consume less electricity to render. Or that having larger margins...
Your position hurts the environment more.
That's a poor justification and a dubious claim. I could just as easily argue that dark screens (which the redesign supports) consume less electricity to render. Or that having larger margins makes it easier to click links on mobile. Or that the redesign is the default view because it tests better with new users.
But ultimately, none of that matters. What does matter is respecting the end-user's preferences. You should never force your view, even if you believe it's better for them.
Having now restated this in various forms to no avail, I think I will bow out now.
Unless you're on an OLED screen, dark screens take just as much electricity, and even in the OLED case that might possibly maybe idk be made up by the heavier resource usage of the structure of...
Unless you're on an OLED screen, dark screens take just as much electricity, and even in the OLED case that might possibly maybe idk be made up by the heavier resource usage of the structure of the page.
Blatantly untrue for your average user, who doesn't have an OLED screen. Especially so for virtually every desktop user. Only in link-dense cases, otherwise untrue. Shockingly, patients also like...
That's a poor justification and a dubious claim. I could just as easily argue that dark screens (which the redesign supports) consume less electricity to render.
Blatantly untrue for your average user, who doesn't have an OLED screen. Especially so for virtually every desktop user.
Or that having larger margins makes it easier to click links on mobile.
Only in link-dense cases, otherwise untrue.
Or that the redesign is the default view because it tests better with new users.
Shockingly, patients also like opioids more than paracetemol!
But ultimately, none of that matters. What does matter is respecting the end-user's preferences. You should never force your view, even if you believe it's better for them.
Exactly! Your view forces them to sign up for a malicious EULA. Don't force that on people, that's atrocious and immoral.
Having now restated this in various forms to no avail, I think I will bow out now.
Through that I found something that confirmed one of my fears. Discord will have online-only DRM for games. I had really hoped that it would be like GoG. You buy a game, you get the install for that game. But nope. Definitely wont be buying games from Discord now. And hopefully I can get my essential servers away from it eventually.
That’s a shame. It’s not like there were many big name games on Nitro, weren’t there?
The problem isn't games on Nitro. That's kind of like "As long as you pay us, you can play these games for free!" By nature of how that works, DRM would be needed.
The issue exists in the market that everyone has access to. In that market, it's online-only DRM for anything you buy. At least with Steam I can go into offline mode (although I'd prefer not to have it at all).
It astonishes me that this is legally binding, according to them. If this is the case, why doesn't every company include such a clause in their ToS? It costs them nothing, surely.
Not applicable in Europe, we still have our sanity.
A lot of companies do now, it's heavily in their favor to include. This was a good article about arbitration clauses from a few years ago: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/business/dealbook/arbitration-everywhere-stacking-the-deck-of-justice.html
In Australia, there's a precedent that these clauses are unfair (legal term), and thus invalidate either the clause, or the entire contract. (Unless the parties involved hold equal power over each other, say a contractor and small business owner).
It's an empty threat, supposed to make the average consumer cave. It's immoral, unethical, and not at all legally binding.
Unfortunately, precedent swung the other way in the USA, so I'd expect more and more of these online businesses to adopt the arbitration clause.
Just a couple more updates to this story over the last couple of days:
Discord made a blog post yesterday addressing the topic and making some changes, including explicitly making it apply only to users in the USA.
Leonard French discussed the changes on his stream yesterday as well (over an hour long and doesn't exactly get straight to the point, so probably only recommended if you're really interested).
Leonard usually releases an edited/condensed version of his livestreams a few days afterwards too, so for most people that may be worth waiting for. I will probably submit it when he releases it since the condensed versions are far better for "general interest" consumption of the topics he covers and his livestreams definitely aren't for everyone.
Could the link be updated to use www.reddit.com instead? "old." forces the old view whereas "www." will use your saved preference.
It's especially bad for mobile users.
The old mobile site is still available
http://i.reddit.com
Much better for mobile.
As much as it is infinitely better, it still has bugs like for example there is a menu option or two that takes you to the bloated version... Not to mention all the user links that just goto the bloated version anyways.
gonna use that when i'm in incognito for next time I
uhhh avoid cookies
It's almost entirely because Tildes isn't optimizing for "engagement" metrics and ad delivery.
Smaller sites have less things they need to do. Newer sites have less technical debt. Sites created by one person have better defined goals. Sites without VC funding don't need to deliver ads.
Website speed is not a technical problem. Its a business problem.
Yeah, how about that.
I like that there's a bit of a discussion of Tildes as a reddit alternative in that thread.
I would not submit "new.reddit.com" links, even though I find dark themes easier on the eyes. It would be unfair of me to force my preference on others. It's not unreasonable to expect the same level of respect in return.
If users want to change the default experience, then let them decide via user preferences - not forced URL overrides.
old.reddit.com uses less resources, and is cheaper on bandwidth, and therefore should probably be linked to as the default.
Expecting people to agree to a third party EULA to customise things is bizarre; if you're so concerned about it install RES and force the new theme.
I prioritize readability, you prioritize data-use. Why is your position any more correct than mine?
Again - letting the user decide is the neutral position. Forcing either the new or old design is unfair to the reader.
Data and electricity use has actual value to the reader, and to the environment.
Your position hurts the environment more.
The neutral position is going to the minimal usage one by default, and not forcing people to use the (arguably less readable) new version.
Forcing people to agree to a third party EULA for more efficiency should never be done.
That's a poor justification and a dubious claim. I could just as easily argue that dark screens (which the redesign supports) consume less electricity to render. Or that having larger margins makes it easier to click links on mobile. Or that the redesign is the default view because it tests better with new users.
But ultimately, none of that matters. What does matter is respecting the end-user's preferences. You should never force your view, even if you believe it's better for them.
Having now restated this in various forms to no avail, I think I will bow out now.
Unless you're on an OLED screen, dark screens take just as much electricity, and even in the OLED case that might possibly maybe idk be made up by the heavier resource usage of the structure of the page.
Blatantly untrue for your average user, who doesn't have an OLED screen. Especially so for virtually every desktop user.
Only in link-dense cases, otherwise untrue.
Shockingly, patients also like opioids more than paracetemol!
Exactly! Your view forces them to sign up for a malicious EULA. Don't force that on people, that's atrocious and immoral.
Great!
If your preference isn't old.reddit your preference is wrong.